Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In his book "Mein Kampf", Hitler had been excited by the "expansion of the white settlers into the West" as being an "Aryan example, which has to be followed". He had been thrilled by the genocide of the Indians and had taken it as example for his holocaust.
So, first having mass murdered millions of Indians and then judge others.
Last edited by Marodil85; 01-03-2021 at 05:48 PM..
Reason: improving text
In his book "Mein Kampf", Hitler had been thrilled by the "expansion of the white settlers into the West" as being an "Aryan example, which has to be followed". He had been thrilled by the genocide of the Indians and had taken it as example for his holocaust.
So, first having mass murdered millions of Indians and then judge others.
I realize you are fixated on the American Indian tribes, but the United States did not conduct the war crimes trials at Nuremberg in a vacuum or do it all by themselves. They were done by the Allied forces under international law.
I realize you are fixated on the American Indian tribes, but the United States did not conduct the war crimes trials at Nuremberg in a vacuum or do it all by themselves. They were done by the Allied forces under international law.
Aha, the Indians had no international law on their side. Is an Indian less worth than a Jew, or what?
Btw, Nürnberg was in the American Occupation Zone back then, so consider which one must have been the driving force of these trials.
In his book "Mein Kampf", Hitler had been thrilled by the "expansion of the white settlers into the West" as being an "Aryan example, which has to be followed". He had been thrilled by the genocide of the Indians and had taken it as example for his holocaust.
So, first having mass murdered millions of Indians and then judge others.
So... using your logic of past aggression being a building point for current aggression, we now need to reach back into antiquity and condemn the tribe of Ogg and its descendants for the clubbing of the tribe of Ugg.
"Thrilled" is an odd word to used, as it has a sexual context. If you are saying Hitler was turned on by genocide, I have no idea if that was true. Maybe, but Eva is dead.
Why do I sense that a European mythical creature is playing?
Aha, the Indians had no international law on their side. Is an Indian less worth than a Jew, or what?
Btw, Nürnberg was in the American Occupation Zone back then, so consider which one must have been the driving force of these trials.
No. The American Indians are one issue and the Nuremberg trials are another. This thread is about the Nuremberg trials, so that's what we'll talk about. I didn't attend any of the trials, and haven't studied them, but I do know that the US was only one of several countries involved. Only a few of the judges and prosecutors involved were Americans.
So... using your logic of past aggression being a building point for current aggression, we now need to reach back into antiquity and condemn the tribe of Ogg and its descendants for the clubbing of the tribe of Ugg.
"Thrilled" is an odd word to used, as it has a sexual context. If you are saying Hitler was turned on by genocide, I have no idea if that was true. Maybe, but Eva is dead.
Why do I sense that a European mythical creature is playing?
My threads are in response to a thread asking if Millenials and Gen Z know about the Nazi Holocaust. If that one is no reach back into antiquity, mine is not either. And please, dear commentator, be aware that this is a forum "History", in which reaching back into antiquity is usual.
I realize you are fixated on the American Indian tribes, but the United States did not conduct the war crimes trials at Nuremberg in a vacuum or do it all by themselves. They were done by the Allied forces under international law.
I think what the OP is trying to say is that he/she thinks what the Nazi's at War Trials did was OK. Takes all kinds...
My threads are in response to a thread asking if Millenials and Gen Z know about the Nazi Holocaust. If that one is no reach back into antiquity, mine is not either. And please, dear commentator, be aware that this is a forum "History", in which reaching back into antiquity is usual.
Reaching back is wonderful and insightful. Making comparisons and drawing parallels between different ages and cultures is fraught with intellectual and ideological nonsense and dangers. Care to compare the Aztecs with Babylonians? Mathematicians could have a rousing debate on the requirements of a duodecimal system for human sacrifice.
I think what the OP is trying to say is that he/she thinks what the Nazi's at War Trials did was OK. Takes all kinds...
You wrote that you mean I think what the Nazi's at War TRIALS did was OK, but this doesn't make any sense, so why am I criticizing them? Therefore, I assume that you presumably mean I think what the Nazis did was OK.
You obviously haven't read properly. I wrote Hitler was excited about the Genocide of the Indians and copied it; I also mentioned: "first mass murdering millions of Indians...". So, how could I first call that one a Genocide and mass-murdering, and then think, the copied holocaust was O.K. But the United States, always proclaiming the pride of their history, home of the brave and stuff like that would have had to first look back and reappraise their history before judging others having done equal cruelties.
You wrote that you mean I think what the Nazi's at War TRIALS did was OK, but this doesn't make any sense, so why am I criticizing them? Therefore, I assume that you presumably mean I think what the Nazis did was OK.
You obviously haven't read properly. I wrote Hitler was excited about the Genocide of the Indians and copied it; I also mentioned: "first mass murdering millions of Indians...". So, how could I first call that one a Genocide and mass-murdering, and then think, the copied holocaust was O.K. But the United States, always proclaiming the pride of their history, home of the brave and stuff like that would have had to first look back and reappraise their history before judging others having done equal cruelties.
I've read about Ted Bundy. That doesn't make me want to go out and emulate him. If you are saying that the early U.S. was crap to the original inhabitants, I will back you to the last trial. If you are saying that the example provided by them was justification for a holocaust, I will consider your opinion as one of someone who utterly disgusts me. I hope that is not your intent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
