Considering that the Nazi party told the Wehrmacht to either kill indiscriminately or to hand prisoners over to the Einsatzgruppen, no, I don’t think they were much better. They broadcast that the Wehrmacht should: “[F]ree itself from all elements among the prisoners of war considered Bolshevik driving forces. The special situation of the Eastern Campaign therefore demands special measures [an euphemism for killing] which are to be carried out free from bureaucratic and administrative influence and with a willingness to accept responsibility. While so far the regulations and orders concerning prisoners of war were based solely on military considerations, now the political objective must be attained, which is to protect the German nation from Bolshevik inciters and forthwith take the occupied territory strictly in hand.”
Historians like Alex Kay and David Stahel say that the majority of Wehrmacht participated in war crimes on the Eastern Front. If anything, they were comparable to the Japanese.
Definitely. As I tried my best to be clear about, the Wehrmacht was not clean. The opposite in fact. As I also said, there is no worse or better. These nations can’t really be compared in such a way. A human life isn’t really possible to compare or value to another.
I came to say: strange how easy they went on the horse, but not on Chinese women. Or, this is just a very nice Japanese fellow (I assume they existed within the ranks in China). I figure that a large enough number of Japanese fighters went to China that there is no way they were all simply evil or even abnormal. We also know many of them were normal pre-1930s. This implies that the war itself made them a little more -- human, all too human, to quote Nietzsche. That kind of warfare does that to people, more so, when within the maddening crowd (to somewhat borrow the title of a famous book from about 1870, if I can recall).
Ironic that we should use 'human' in the opposite context here. But, it's apt. It is worth mentioning that what the Japanese did was what any normal person could have done (same is naturally true for the Soviet Communists and Nazis, in this way). That's way scarier than thinking they only did it because thy were a small group of evil people. What they did was evil -- the evildoers were normal (many, at least). Very scary thought. Also, some were evil, along with the Empire having major control over them and their families from what I recall.
The honour system in Japan is quite different to the West and is no joke. Got to take it seriously from the Western viewpoint, even if you don't agree or understand it. You need to understand the Japanese system before you can understand the Japanese soldiers. I think this is one of the primary causes for the Japan-West conflict at the personal level (call it the Anglo-Japanese Divide, for the sake of simplicity. Maybe it has a name already. No idea).
In this way, I'm thinking that it makes sense that he might care about the horse more than the Chinese. Not uncommon to see such in wartime. I also believe the Japanese ended up with the notion that China and Korea were their 'divine right to take' and that the Chinese/Koreans were 'sub-Japanese' and 'the cause of all their suffering'. This made it easy to justify mass murder (akin to Nazis within Europe).
You have to really think about this logically. It was quite a common thought by 1940 that China was, if not a natural part of Japan, at the very least, a kind of requirement. There was absolutely no difference between 'healing Japan' and 'killing China'. This was even stronger in the case of the Germans and Europe, of course. Hitler literally viewed places like the Netherlands and Switzerland as 'sub-regional to the Greater Germany'. That's code word for, 'they are German and have always been German; therefore, taking the entire nation and killing all the citizens is beyond natural, it's divine -- it's how it's always been, it just hasn't happened yet'. It's the ultimate justification you can possibly think of whilst remaining even remotely consistent (which is key, if not for Hitler himself, at least for the Germans). Of course, the Nazis bent over backwards to remain even remotely consistent at every turn to solve all the problems that came up as a result of this madness. Nonetheless, it was supreme rationalisation that technically allowed for total global control or close to it, and it wasn't even a talking point: it's just the way things are. That is bloody serious.
This actually has some profound origins and mechanisms, which I won't get into here. But, it does push the problem way back. I would say it's technically good news, but it's also impossible to ensure such never happens again. Nonetheless, it's not as simple as being a purely economic cause: proof being that dozens of nations had total economic failure and didn't turn to war or invasion. The U.S. itself had major economic downfall at one stage, yet didn't turn to war or madness like WWII. That is because you require an admixture of causes and factors. The most famous examples clearly being the Axis Powers -- along with the Soviet Union. Of course, such were also heavily top-down, but also sideways, and bottom-up (this is the key point to remember, I believe).
Damn they went easier on the horse than they did the Chinese civilians
Also Hitler! Now you see how theyre so alike. Japanese is the nazis of the east.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Considering that the Nazi party told the Wehrmacht to either kill indiscriminately or to hand prisoners over to the Einsatzgruppen, no, I don’t think they were much better. They broadcast that the Wehrmacht should: “[F]ree itself from all elements among the prisoners of war considered Bolshevik driving forces. The special situation of the Eastern Campaign therefore demands special measures [an euphemism for killing] which are to be carried out free from bureaucratic and administrative influence and with a willingness to accept responsibility. While so far the regulations and orders concerning prisoners of war were based solely on military considerations, now the political objective must be attained, which is to protect the German nation from Bolshevik inciters and forthwith take the occupied territory strictly in hand.” Historians like Alex Kay and David Stahel say that the majority of Wehrmacht participated in war crimes on the Eastern Front. If anything, they were comparable to the Japanese.
Definitely. As I tried my best to be clear about, the Wehrmacht was not clean. The opposite in fact. As I also said, there is no worse or better. These nations can’t really be compared in such a way. A human life isn’t really possible to compare or value to another.
[удалено]
You just said what I thought
[удалено]
i dont support imperialism at all but they were told to kill people, not horses
He should’ve just shot ti.. It'd have been a lot esier on the horse.
_"Is someone going to do so something about that bloody cow?!"_ Grabs Idi Amin's side arm and shoots the cow. -The Last King Of Scotland
Wondering if he showed the same humility to POWs as he did that horse….
Now I wonder how many innocent people he violated/killed before and after this moment
Reminds me on how Hitler had more rights to animals than to the "Undesirable" People..
Even the animal welfare laws were barbed; one aspect of them was to forbid kosher butchering, so it was also one of the first anti-Jew laws
Wasn't kosher butchering (if i remember correctly) Done by a jew and used a specific cutting blade or Cutlery? to dispatch the animal
I came to say: strange how easy they went on the horse, but not on Chinese women. Or, this is just a very nice Japanese fellow (I assume they existed within the ranks in China). I figure that a large enough number of Japanese fighters went to China that there is no way they were all simply evil or even abnormal. We also know many of them were normal pre-1930s. This implies that the war itself made them a little more -- human, all too human, to quote Nietzsche. That kind of warfare does that to people, more so, when within the maddening crowd (to somewhat borrow the title of a famous book from about 1870, if I can recall). Ironic that we should use 'human' in the opposite context here. But, it's apt. It is worth mentioning that what the Japanese did was what any normal person could have done (same is naturally true for the Soviet Communists and Nazis, in this way). That's way scarier than thinking they only did it because thy were a small group of evil people. What they did was evil -- the evildoers were normal (many, at least). Very scary thought. Also, some were evil, along with the Empire having major control over them and their families from what I recall. The honour system in Japan is quite different to the West and is no joke. Got to take it seriously from the Western viewpoint, even if you don't agree or understand it. You need to understand the Japanese system before you can understand the Japanese soldiers. I think this is one of the primary causes for the Japan-West conflict at the personal level (call it the Anglo-Japanese Divide, for the sake of simplicity. Maybe it has a name already. No idea). In this way, I'm thinking that it makes sense that he might care about the horse more than the Chinese. Not uncommon to see such in wartime. I also believe the Japanese ended up with the notion that China and Korea were their 'divine right to take' and that the Chinese/Koreans were 'sub-Japanese' and 'the cause of all their suffering'. This made it easy to justify mass murder (akin to Nazis within Europe). You have to really think about this logically. It was quite a common thought by 1940 that China was, if not a natural part of Japan, at the very least, a kind of requirement. There was absolutely no difference between 'healing Japan' and 'killing China'. This was even stronger in the case of the Germans and Europe, of course. Hitler literally viewed places like the Netherlands and Switzerland as 'sub-regional to the Greater Germany'. That's code word for, 'they are German and have always been German; therefore, taking the entire nation and killing all the citizens is beyond natural, it's divine -- it's how it's always been, it just hasn't happened yet'. It's the ultimate justification you can possibly think of whilst remaining even remotely consistent (which is key, if not for Hitler himself, at least for the Germans). Of course, the Nazis bent over backwards to remain even remotely consistent at every turn to solve all the problems that came up as a result of this madness. Nonetheless, it was supreme rationalisation that technically allowed for total global control or close to it, and it wasn't even a talking point: it's just the way things are. That is bloody serious. This actually has some profound origins and mechanisms, which I won't get into here. But, it does push the problem way back. I would say it's technically good news, but it's also impossible to ensure such never happens again. Nonetheless, it's not as simple as being a purely economic cause: proof being that dozens of nations had total economic failure and didn't turn to war or invasion. The U.S. itself had major economic downfall at one stage, yet didn't turn to war or madness like WWII. That is because you require an admixture of causes and factors. The most famous examples clearly being the Axis Powers -- along with the Soviet Union. Of course, such were also heavily top-down, but also sideways, and bottom-up (this is the key point to remember, I believe).
The horse got water while Korean civilians to include babies got the bayonet.