• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is "Civil Disobedience" a legitimate tool to effect government change?

Is "Civil Disobedience" a legitimate tool to effect government change?

  • Total voters
    65
phattonez said:
When have I ever insisted that? I'm just challenging the dopey idea that Germans didn't suffer, or Germans had it coming, or other such nonsense. No civilians ever deserve to be bombed, raped, or targeted for extermination.
Click to expand...

Because you're entire argument boils down to such binary moral decisions that have no bearing on reality. It's absolutely a tragedy that hundreds of thousands of German civilians were killed during the war.

But how on earth is the alternative, letting Nazi Germany carry out it's plans of extermination of those they deem racially inferior, somehow preferable?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
And given as your described alternative is just letting Nazi Germany carry out it's plans for total annihilation of those they deem racially inferior, I see plenty of reason to criticize your standing.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with Hitler and Stalin fighting and killing each other. I have a big problem with helping Stalin conquer Eastern Europe.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Because you're entire argument boils down to such binary moral decisions that have no bearing on reality. It's absolutely a tragedy that hundreds of thousands of German civilians were killed during the war.

But how on earth is the alternative, letting Nazi Germany carry out it's plans of extermination of those they deem racially inferior, somehow preferable?
Click to expand...

That wasn't the alternative. The alternative was to not help Stalin and let him carry out the war effort on his own, without helping him to rampage through Eastern Europe and suppress half a continent with Communist regimes.
 
phattonez said:
People literally driving tanks toward you aren't civilians, even if they are younger than 18.



No, the Nazis were brutal as well, especially on the Eastern Front, and interning Jews and others in concentration camps, not just death camps, is atrocious. Like I said to Jredbaron, my issue is with the excusing of atrocities committed against Germans.



Churchill did more than payback. 60,000 British civilians were killed in air raids, an awful number. How many Germans were killed in air raids? 350,000-650,000. Churchill (and especially Arthur Harris) was a monster.



Did they? Ukranians collaborated with Nazis, did they not? And how many Ukranians were compelled to support the Red Army because of barrier troops?
Click to expand...

They were children, yet they committed war crimes. Towards the end the Nazis were throwing anyone and everyone who could hold a rifle out there. So no, the “pity the poor children” argument doesn’t work. Nice try though.

The “atrocities” you claim were dealt out were far, far, far less than what the Nazis has been doing for years. They chose to make it a war of extermination; you can’t do that and expect there not too be consequences for the atrocities you commit,

War is not proportionate. When somebody attacks you or your allies, as the Nazis did, you don’t count out the dead and then stop fighting after the enemy has taken the same losses. Had the Germans been able to kill more Brits they would have. So no, the argument that it’s “unfair” that the Allies kept bombing Germany doesn’t work either.

No, neither Churchill nor Harris was a “monster”.

The vast majority of them did not collaborate, especially once they realized that the Nazis were far worse than even Stalin. You had resistance fighters all over the country.

The fact of the matter was that the Nazis were so evil they turned the Ukrainians to supporting Stalin. That just goes to show how truly and deeply evil the white nationalists were.
 
phattonez said:
That wasn't the alternative. The alternative was to not help Stalin and let him carry out the war effort on his own, without helping him to rampage through Eastern Europe and suppress half a continent with Communist regimes.
Click to expand...

So in other words you advocate allowing the Nazis to defeat the Soviets and enslave Europe. Gee, what a surprise :roll:
 
phattonez said:
I have no problem with Hitler and Stalin fighting and killing each other. I have a big problem with helping Stalin conquer Eastern Europe.
Click to expand...

Because the alternative of Nazi extermination of was so much more preferable. There still is Poland today even after forty years of Communist Rule. There wouldn't have been a Poland after 15 years of Nazi rule.
 
phattonez said:
That wasn't the alternative. The alternative was to not help Stalin and let him carry out the war effort on his own, without helping him to rampage through Eastern Europe and suppress half a continent with Communist regimes.
Click to expand...

Except that banking on that was ridiculous. Letting the Soviets fall to the Nazis would've just made things worse.

Eastern Europe endured decades of Communist rule and still survives today. The same can't be said for Nazi domination, despite what you may insist.
 
Civil disobedience is one of the only tools available when a Government like ours becomes corrupted before violence and revolution becomes inevitable. The school walkouts are a very good example as it is likely that if it fails to create change, someone(s) will begin using the NRA preferred symbol against it and it's employees in government.
 
Tigerace117 said:
They were children, yet they committed war crimes. Towards the end the Nazis were throwing anyone and everyone who could hold a rifle out there. So no, the “pity the poor children” argument doesn’t work. Nice try though.
Click to expand...

Bombing babies is NEVER justified.

The “atrocities” you claim were dealt out were far, far, far less than what the Nazis has been doing for years. They chose to make it a war of extermination; you can’t do that and expect there not too be consequences for the atrocities you commit,

War is not proportionate. When somebody attacks you or your allies, as the Nazis did, you don’t count out the dead and then stop fighting after the enemy has taken the same losses. Had the Germans been able to kill more Brits they would have. So no, the argument that it’s “unfair” that the Allies kept bombing Germany doesn’t work either.

No, neither Churchill nor Harris was a “monster”.

The vast majority of them did not collaborate, especially once they realized that the Nazis were far worse than even Stalin. You had resistance fighters all over the country.

The fact of the matter was that the Nazis were so evil they turned the Ukrainians to supporting Stalin. That just goes to show how truly and deeply evil the white nationalists were.
Click to expand...

From Kurt Vonnegut: “The Dresden atrocity, tremendously expensive and meticulously planned, was so meaningless, finally, that only one person on the entire planet got any benefit from it. I am that person. I wrote this book, which earned a lot of money for me and made my reputation, such as it is. One way or another, I got two or three dollars for every person killed. Some business I'm in.”

You are blind to Allied war crimes. But it's not surprising. History is written by the victors.
 
Tigerace117 said:
So in other words you advocate allowing the Nazis to defeat the Soviets and enslave Europe. Gee, what a surprise :roll:
Click to expand...

Would the Nazis have been able to defeat the Soviets? The Nazis were still using horses to maintain their supply lines. Operation Barbarossa was doomed.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Because the alternative of Nazi extermination of was so much more preferable. There still is Poland today even after forty years of Communist Rule. There wouldn't have been a Poland after 15 years of Nazi rule.
Click to expand...

That's quite a speculation you have there, especially considering that we still don't know the details of the peace treaty that Hitler offered to Britain. Further, why are you so convinced that the Soviets would have been completely defeated? How far deep into Russia do you think the Nazis could have gotten using horses to maintain their supply lines?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Except that banking on that was ridiculous. Letting the Soviets fall to the Nazis would've just made things worse.

Eastern Europe endured decades of Communist rule and still survives today. The same can't be said for Nazi domination, despite what you may insist.
Click to expand...

This is a point just begging for evidence.
 
phattonez said:
Would the Nazis have been able to defeat the Soviets? The Nazis were still using horses to maintain their supply lines. Operation Barbarossa was doomed.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Nazis certainly would have been able to do so, given that they made it deep into the USSR and came within inches of taking the most important cities in Russia.

So no, it certainly wasn't guaranteed that the Nazis would fail
 
phattonez said:
Bombing babies is NEVER justified.



From Kurt Vonnegut: “The Dresden atrocity, tremendously expensive and meticulously planned, was so meaningless, finally, that only one person on the entire planet got any benefit from it. I am that person. I wrote this book, which earned a lot of money for me and made my reputation, such as it is. One way or another, I got two or three dollars for every person killed. Some business I'm in.”

You are blind to Allied war crimes. But it's not surprising. History is written by the victors.
Click to expand...

And you are desperately flailing about in an attempt to draw a false parallel. Germany started the war; Germany chose to attack its neighbors; Germany can't complain when they receive back what they dished out.

Vonnegut seems to have forgotten quite a few on the people he killed were shooting at him--- but then again, it just goes to show that there is, once again, no moral equivalence between the Allies and Axis. You never heard any German or Japanese pilots being upset about having to go out and hit London or Shanghai.

You are overly concerned about the Nazis being paid back what they dished out, but for a "traditionalist" that's no surprise.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Yes, the Nazis certainly would have been able to do so, given that they made it deep into the USSR and came within inches of taking the most important cities in Russia.

So no, it certainly wasn't guaranteed that the Nazis would fail
Click to expand...

They were stopped more by the weather and overextended supply lines than by Russians. They couldn't launch a full assault on Moscow.
 
Tigerace117 said:
The Nazis exterminated millions of European Jews, Slavs, Roma, etc.
Click to expand...

And Soviets also exterminated millions. I fail to see why I should have supported Stalin over Hitler.
 
phattonez said:
They were stopped more by the weather and overextended supply lines than by Russians. They couldn't launch a full assault on Moscow.
Click to expand...

Oh really? You think this wasn't a "full assault"?

"With the end of summer, Hitler redirected his attention to Moscow and assigned Army Group Center to this task. The forces committed to Operation Typhoon included four infantry armies (the 2nd, 4th, 9th and 6th[18]) supported by three Panzer (tank) Groups (the 2nd, 3rd and 4th) and by the Luftwaffe's Luftflotte 2. Up to two million German troops were committed to the operation, along with 1,000–2,470 tanks and assault guns and 14,000 guns."
 
phattonez said:
And Soviets also exterminated millions. I fail to see why I should have supported Stalin over Hitler.
Click to expand...

You asked for evidence that Eastern Europeans wouldn't have survived Adolf's rule over Europe. That's case in point.

Oh, and Adolf killed his men in a tiny fraction of the time the Soviets took to accomplish their's
 
Tigerace117 said:
And you are desperately flailing about in an attempt to draw a false parallel. Germany started the war; Germany chose to attack its neighbors; Germany can't complain when they receive back what they dished out.
Click to expand...

You're failing to realize that the decisions of a country's leadership do not make all of the people of a nation guilty.

Vonnegut seems to have forgotten quite a few on the people he killed were shooting at him--- but then again, it just goes to show that there is, once again, no moral equivalence between the Allies and Axis. You never heard any German or Japanese pilots being upset about having to go out and hit London or Shanghai.

You are overly concerned about the Nazis being paid back what they dished out, but for a "traditionalist" that's no surprise.
Click to expand...

Everything that you're arguing shows that there is an equivalence between the Allies and Axis. You're not really making the case that the Axis were obviously worse. You have genocidal empires on both sides. You have bombing of civilians on both sides (though on a much larger scale among the Allies). You have invasions of countries on both sides.

I would have been fine with allying with Britain to liberate Western Europe and giving no aid to Stalin. I'm not fine with sending Soviets food and Jeeps to help Stalin conquer Eastern Europe.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Oh really? You think this wasn't a "full assault"?

"With the end of summer, Hitler redirected his attention to Moscow and assigned Army Group Center to this task. The forces committed to Operation Typhoon included four infantry armies (the 2nd, 4th, 9th and 6th[18]) supported by three Panzer (tank) Groups (the 2nd, 3rd and 4th) and by the Luftwaffe's Luftflotte 2. Up to two million German troops were committed to the operation, along with 1,000–2,470 tanks and assault guns and 14,000 guns."
Click to expand...

And they stopped miles short of Moscow. I'm not denying that they tried to launch a full assault, but with supply lines overextended and weather turning against them, they couldn't pull it off.
 
phattonez said:
You're failing to realize that the decisions of a country's leadership do not make all of the people of a nation guilty.



Everything that you're arguing shows that there is an equivalence between the Allies and Axis. You're not really making the case that the Axis were obviously worse. You have genocidal empires on both sides. You have bombing of civilians on both sides (though on a much larger scale among the Allies). You have invasions of countries on both sides.

I would have been fine with allying with Britain to liberate Western Europe and giving no aid to Stalin. I'm not fine with sending Soviets food and Jeeps to help Stalin conquer Eastern Europe.
Click to expand...

Except millions upon millions of Germans actively supported Adolf Hitler, so yes, they are every bit as guilty.

No, there was no equivalence. The Allies never industrially murdered millions of non combatants. The Allies never conducted evil experiments on civilians and POWs. The Allies never used bioweapons on civilians. There's about a million and a half other examples, but it remains clear that there was no equivalence between the two sides.

The vast majority of Ukrainians actively supported the man who created the Holodomar, so no, you can't use that as an excuse. The Germans began targeted cities and civilians years before the Allies began to strike back, so that argument is invalid. And no, considering the fact that the Soviet Union was allied to your beloved white nationalists when they invaded the Baltic States and Finland, you third argument doesn't work either.

Yes, we are aware that you would have been fine with letting Hitler enslave Europe and exterminate millions more people.
 
phattonez said:
And they stopped miles short of Moscow. I'm not denying that they tried to launch a full assault, but with supply lines overextended and weather turning against them, they couldn't pull it off.
Click to expand...

Not succeeding does not mean it couldn't have succeeded--- like I said, they came within inches of taking the most important cities in Russia.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Except millions upon millions of Germans actively supported Adolf Hitler, so yes, they are every bit as guilty.
Click to expand...

Hitler convinced them that German minorities in Poland were being persecuted. They had no knowledge of the Holocaust. How guilty were the civilians really?
No, there was no equivalence. The Allies never industrially murdered millions of non combatants. The Allies never conducted evil experiments on civilians and POWs. The Allies never used bioweapons on civilians. There's about a million and a half other examples, but it remains clear that there was no equivalence between the two sides.
Click to expand...

Quit thinking only of the US and British. We had no business allying with Stalin.
The vast majority of Ukrainians actively supported the man who created the Holodomar, so no, you can't use that as an excuse. The Germans began targeted cities and civilians years before the Allies began to strike back, so that argument is invalid. And no, considering the fact that the Soviet Union was allied to your beloved white nationalists when they invaded the Baltic States and Finland, you third argument doesn't work either.
Click to expand...

That is bonkers. Why does Stalin get a pass for what he did before we allied with him? Why do you ignore his domination of Eastern Europe after the war?

Yes, we are aware that you would have been fine with letting Hitler enslave Europe and exterminate millions more people.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union enslaved Europe and exterminated millions more people.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Not succeeding does not mean it couldn't have succeeded--- like I said, they came within inches of taking the most important cities in Russia.
Click to expand...

The biggest contributor to getting the Nazis away from Moscow wasn't allied aid, it was Soviet intelligence assuring Stalin that Japan wasn't going to invade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom