6 ms·

"There Won’t Be Anything Special About Your Shooting" Well yeah, but it would be special, if they came up with other target, something in line with ETA/IRA tar

"There Won’t Be Anything Special About Your Shooting" Well yeah, but it would be special, if they came up with other target, something in line with ETA/IRA targets, in which case they could become even heroes for significant part of population. "The “great men” of history — the emperors, the conquerors — aren’t remembered for the death and destruction they wrought." Sure, nobody remembers Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Mao etc. What is this guy smoking? Oh yeah, right, Hitler is the most remembered for great German highways he built. Nobody remembers those 50M dead Chinese from Mao's made famine.

vaylian 4y ago
Why the negativity? > Sure, nobody remembers Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Mao etc. What is this guy smoking? I'm pretty sure the author used the word "remembered" in the sense of "recognized" or "admired". Could they have chosen a more precise word? Yes, but to me it is clear what they mean.
- ComradePhil 4y ago
  Hitler is recognized and admired by many. If the change in world order happens when his significance is still fresh, he will surface back as a universally admired figure because it is not very difficult to piece together what the Nazi regime actually did vs what the Soviet occupiers accused them of (and what the US went along with).
  - sofixa 4y ago
    > because it is not very difficult to piece together what the Nazi regime actually did vs what the Soviet occupiers accused them of (and what the US went along with). Could you entertain us with more detail on what you mean here? Germany's atrocities are well documented across Europe ( and North Africa). The Soviets had nothing to do with Drancy or Bergen-Belsen for instance. We know of the Auschwitz horrors through Polish resistance fighters who infiltrated it and managed to escape. There are some things that the Soviets tried to blame on the Germans, and it was certainly believable ( Katyn massacre), but we knew then and know now that it was indeed the Soviets. So what do you mean? What is it, for you, that Germany and Hitler are getting the blame for that was actually the Soviets' work? I don't see what it could possibly be to wash Hitler's image for anyone, unless your starting position is a bit off.
    - ComradePhil 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - sofixa 4y ago
        > Actual Nazi records are still largely classified and still selectively being released obviously after destroying counter-narrative ones. A lot of Nazi records are public. And so are the records of a lot of the occupied countries. Including mundane details like how much SNCF and Deutsche Bahn billes per "passenger" ( of course usually in cattle/cargo cars), and the amounts. We also have ample witness testimony, and video and photographic footage from the various camps, be they concentration, extermination or transit ( which were in occupied countries and often were managed by the local collaborationist government). > The second world war was a biological war with typhus as the primary weapon. All of "holocaust" was Germany trying to quarantine and treat the infection... which is why SS doctors were at the frontline of it all. They still lost millions of people. The most affected were low hyegine communities who did not listen to government recommendations If it was a biological war, where did the typhus come from? And why were people "quarantined" to starvation/exhaustion from work from faraway places likes jews from Netherlands transferred to Auschwitz? > but the 6 million number is downright retarded if you look at the population records. 6 million is for the jews only, there's an additional 2 million Roma, Sinthy, disabled, gays, etc. Not to mention hundreds of thousands of POWs. > You can fabricate any story if you get to kill everyone who disagrees with it and that is exactly what the Soviet and American forces did. Who was killed that disagreed with the story? And how do you think did the Americans, Soviets and all occupied countries get to the same story? Especially countries like Yugoslavia which liberated themselves and were neutral post-WW2? And why do we have stories from people who managed to escape telling of the horrors? Also, if i might bring your attention to the words of the perpetrators themselves - none of them denied anything. You can go and watch a full recording of the trial of Adolf Eichmann if you want to. You can read the testimony from Nuremberg. You can watch the footage, including of freed inmates, from when the camps were liberated. And of course you can go and visit any of the camp sites. I've been to Dachau and it's... powerful.
  - thombat 4y ago
    Please ELI5: what did the Nazi regime actually do? What is it about Hitler that warrants universal admiration?
mushbino 4y ago
To be fair, nobody remembers the US killing 20% of the Korean population. People remember what's geopolitically advantageous and reemphasized regularly. Most people don't remember all the people killed in the Murrah building. It's usefulness in the public consciousness is long gone. The MOVE bombings, the battle of Blair mountain, or Tulsa until very recently.
- Markoff 4y ago
  You don't need most people to remember you to be remembered and recognition changes over time, someone seen as villain can change in few months/years into hero. It comes down what are your goals, after all people will never agree on everything and will have always different opinions. The most recent example is certain Eastern European politician best known for corruption, purging opposition, making headlines together with certain Russian president last year, now seen as the saint, because for some simpletons enemy of their enemy becomes their friend.
  - mushbino 4y ago
    In the cases you've mentioned, people by and large don't form their opinions based on studying historical facts in an objective way but based on what they're told, almost exclusively by their government in these cases. Certain atrocities are highlighted and emphasized repeatedly, others are overlooked or hidden, but rarely because of how bad or bloody they were. World history is basically the history of war and few people consider them all to be bad. The only school shooters I can remember the names of are the Columbine shooters and I'd say that's mostly due to the fact they were the first in the modern school shooter era (depressing reality). Perhaps that fame helped fuel other shootings, but I can't name a single other one out of the many since then. I'm sure the fact that we're so used to acts of violence in the US on a regular basis is a contributing factor. At this point you'd have to do something pretty horrendously bad to go down in infamy. On the other hand, if it were an act (without innocent casualties) committed against say a financial, insurance institution or some other disliked entity, they could become a folk hero.

vaylian 4y ago

Why the negativity? > Sure, nobody remembers Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Mao etc. What is this guy smoking? I'm pretty sure the author used the word "remembered" in the sense of "recognized" or "admired". Could they have chosen a more precise word? Yes, but to me it is clear what they mean.

ComradePhil 4y ago
Hitler is recognized and admired by many. If the change in world order happens when his significance is still fresh, he will surface back as a universally admired figure because it is not very difficult to piece together what the Nazi regime actually did vs what the Soviet occupiers accused them of (and what the US went along with).
- sofixa 4y ago
  > because it is not very difficult to piece together what the Nazi regime actually did vs what the Soviet occupiers accused them of (and what the US went along with). Could you entertain us with more detail on what you mean here? Germany's atrocities are well documented across Europe ( and North Africa). The Soviets had nothing to do with Drancy or Bergen-Belsen for instance. We know of the Auschwitz horrors through Polish resistance fighters who infiltrated it and managed to escape. There are some things that the Soviets tried to blame on the Germans, and it was certainly believable ( Katyn massacre), but we knew then and know now that it was indeed the Soviets. So what do you mean? What is it, for you, that Germany and Hitler are getting the blame for that was actually the Soviets' work? I don't see what it could possibly be to wash Hitler's image for anyone, unless your starting position is a bit off.
  - ComradePhil 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - sofixa 4y ago
      > Actual Nazi records are still largely classified and still selectively being released obviously after destroying counter-narrative ones. A lot of Nazi records are public. And so are the records of a lot of the occupied countries. Including mundane details like how much SNCF and Deutsche Bahn billes per "passenger" ( of course usually in cattle/cargo cars), and the amounts. We also have ample witness testimony, and video and photographic footage from the various camps, be they concentration, extermination or transit ( which were in occupied countries and often were managed by the local collaborationist government). > The second world war was a biological war with typhus as the primary weapon. All of "holocaust" was Germany trying to quarantine and treat the infection... which is why SS doctors were at the frontline of it all. They still lost millions of people. The most affected were low hyegine communities who did not listen to government recommendations If it was a biological war, where did the typhus come from? And why were people "quarantined" to starvation/exhaustion from work from faraway places likes jews from Netherlands transferred to Auschwitz? > but the 6 million number is downright retarded if you look at the population records. 6 million is for the jews only, there's an additional 2 million Roma, Sinthy, disabled, gays, etc. Not to mention hundreds of thousands of POWs. > You can fabricate any story if you get to kill everyone who disagrees with it and that is exactly what the Soviet and American forces did. Who was killed that disagreed with the story? And how do you think did the Americans, Soviets and all occupied countries get to the same story? Especially countries like Yugoslavia which liberated themselves and were neutral post-WW2? And why do we have stories from people who managed to escape telling of the horrors? Also, if i might bring your attention to the words of the perpetrators themselves - none of them denied anything. You can go and watch a full recording of the trial of Adolf Eichmann if you want to. You can read the testimony from Nuremberg. You can watch the footage, including of freed inmates, from when the camps were liberated. And of course you can go and visit any of the camp sites. I've been to Dachau and it's... powerful.
- thombat 4y ago
  Please ELI5: what did the Nazi regime actually do? What is it about Hitler that warrants universal admiration?

mushbino 4y ago

To be fair, nobody remembers the US killing 20% of the Korean population. People remember what's geopolitically advantageous and reemphasized regularly. Most people don't remember all the people killed in the Murrah building. It's usefulness in the public consciousness is long gone. The MOVE bombings, the battle of Blair mountain, or Tulsa until very recently.

Markoff 4y ago
You don't need most people to remember you to be remembered and recognition changes over time, someone seen as villain can change in few months/years into hero. It comes down what are your goals, after all people will never agree on everything and will have always different opinions. The most recent example is certain Eastern European politician best known for corruption, purging opposition, making headlines together with certain Russian president last year, now seen as the saint, because for some simpletons enemy of their enemy becomes their friend.
- mushbino 4y ago
  In the cases you've mentioned, people by and large don't form their opinions based on studying historical facts in an objective way but based on what they're told, almost exclusively by their government in these cases. Certain atrocities are highlighted and emphasized repeatedly, others are overlooked or hidden, but rarely because of how bad or bloody they were. World history is basically the history of war and few people consider them all to be bad. The only school shooters I can remember the names of are the Columbine shooters and I'd say that's mostly due to the fact they were the first in the modern school shooter era (depressing reality). Perhaps that fame helped fuel other shootings, but I can't name a single other one out of the many since then. I'm sure the fact that we're so used to acts of violence in the US on a regular basis is a contributing factor. At this point you'd have to do something pretty horrendously bad to go down in infamy. On the other hand, if it were an act (without innocent casualties) committed against say a financial, insurance institution or some other disliked entity, they could become a folk hero.