What made WWII more contraversial than WWI

[Safetytrousers]

Nazism inherently contained ideas of racial supremacy and the right to take territory by force.
Communism in its essence does not target for ill treatment any grouping. Communist regimes have demonstrated why a communist political system is on the whole not desirable, but the basic idea of communism is reasonable. Some of the basic beliefs of Nazism are not reasonable.

Time has a way of softening terrible things, especially when the details of those things are not known as in the case of Ghengis Khan. I personally don't know of any specific atrocity he committed, and I certainly don't know what his general political outlook was. People openly discuss the Jack the Ripper killings but no such popular scrutiny is heaped on someone like Peter Sutcliffe.

An enormous amount of documentary and dramatic material has been made about and based in WW2. It's heavily ingrained in British consciousness. And there are still people alive who lived during it, my mother was 7 when it ended.
It's only in the past 20 years or so WW1 has had more exposure. People have gone through a lot of finding out about it, in a way they already knew about WW2.
WW1 was two sides doing it just because they were on different sides. WW2 was about the defeat of a wanton aggressor.

 

[Pudney]

But I'm not saying your argument re: communism is wrong in an historical sense per say. I'm highlighting that you could also make the argument re: national socialism that blames the atrocities on Nazi leadership in Germany and just supports the general ideology (in fact there are modern day "national socialists" who actually try to do this).

That depends whether you're referring to "national socialism" (whatever that is) or "National Socialism" which was the doctrine of the Nazis. One is inextricably linked to the Nazis themselves, the other is something you'd have to define for me.

But like I say, "Communism" isn't responsible for genocide. Stalin was. To describe it as a function of Communism is unfair on people like Lenin, Krushchev, Gorbachev etc. who, despite the significant shortcomings in their political views, were certainly not genocidal maniacs in the same vein as Stalin or Hitler.

 

[dowie]

That depends whether you're referring to "national socialism" (whatever that is) or "National Socialism" which was the doctrine of the Nazis. One is inextricably linked to the Nazis themselves, the other is something you'd have to define for me.

But like I say, "Communism" isn't responsible for genocide. Stalin was. To describe it as a function of Communism is unfair on people like Lenin, Krushchev, Gorbachev etc. who, despite the significant shortcomings in their political views, were certainly not genocidal maniacs in the same vein as Stalin or Hitler.

I think we're going round in circles here and if you're going to then make an argument about use of capital letters then it's getting a bit silly...

 

[Pudney]

I think we're going round in circles here and if you're going to then make an argument about use of capital letters then it's getting a bit silly...

Well, no it's an important distinction as the Nazis weren't really socialist. They called themselves that as part of the propaganda to counter the rise of communism. So if you're talking about "National Socialism" as defined by the Nazi party then the two go hand in hand and I don't believe you can disassociate the two. If you mean something else by national socialism (and only you know that) then I would need you to tell me.

Essentially, if you mean National Socialism as used by the Nazis then no, I don't think you can argue away the holocaust from the political ideology and therefore it's not the same as Communism and Stalinism.

 

[dowie]

Well, no it's an important distinction as the Nazis weren't really socialist. They called themselves that as part of the propaganda to counter the rise of communism. So if you're talking about "National Socialism" as defined by the Nazi party then the two go hand in hand and I don't believe you can disassociate the two. If you mean something else by national socialism (and only you know that) then I would need you to tell me.

Essentially, if you mean National Socialism as used by the Nazis then no, I don't think you can argue away the holocaust from the political ideology and therefore it's not the same as Communism and Stalinism.

Why not?

 

[rare]

Communism in its essence does not target for ill treatment any grouping. Communist regimes have demonstrated why a communist political system is on the whole not desirable, but the basic idea of communism is reasonable.

Unless you own the means of production.

Arguably Communism as an ideology is more than accountable for atrocious atrocities. Look at the red terror under Lenin.

To address the initial post, the First World War was a continuation of the historic land wars that were fought between the European states for centuries. It was a war primarily about the control of land, and the continuation and expansion of empire. But they largely, and rather broadly, all shared similar political and ideological systems and views.

The Second World War was categorically different. It was a war fought on ideological and racial terms, in Europe at least. A clash of ideologies, between the western democracies and the new fascist/national socialist states which saw themselves as the future and the democracies as the decadent past. National Socialism sought the advancement of empire on the grounds of preserving and extending a perceived racial superiority. This perception was so fundamental to National Socialism that it was positioned as ultimately a war between two races, the aryan race and the Jewish race, its financiers and backers. Although Hitler wanted to create a ‘classical’ looking Empire, he also ultimately wanted the state to employ all its modern technological means to eradicate the Jewish race from within. Along with any other race, such as Gypsies, that were seen as inferior or detrimental to the long term health of the aryan race.

Such a viewpoint would see the state and all of its apparatus commit crimes that extend beyond the battlefield carnage of the First World War.

 

[Pudney]

Why not?

Because the Stalinist view of communism viewed the state as needing to have the strength to counter the counter-revolutionaries that Stalin believed would appear as a nation transitioned to full communism. The counter Stalin believed in was the use of force by the state. Stalin’s views also influenced Mao Zedong, another one of communism’s mass murderers. Stalin believed in himself over the party as a whole.

Most of the atrocities occurring under communism in the 20th century can be linked back to Stalin and his particular version of communism.

Again the above is my limited understanding of the matter and I’m happy to be proved wrong.

 

[Tefal]

Serious question, because my history classes only covered WWI. At the end of the term, the history teacher treated us to Black Adder, some of the WWI episodes.

Now who doesn't like a spot of Black Adder? Especially the war episodes? A lot more people died in WWI, also known as the Great War. Black Adder made a mockery of this and nobody batted an eyelid. I guess it's before the Twitter era, but surely common sense anyway, no?

Yet if you turn up to a fancy dress party in a Nazi outfit (which is related to WWII), at best you will get kicked out and at worst you'll get arrested. Take some other evil leaders such as Ghengis Khan, Vlad The Impaler, Ivan the Terrible or Attila The Hun, and dressing up as one of those wouldn't be a problem. I just don't understand why WWII is so politicised. Is it because it's still recent history and people are still alive from it (in their 80s and 90s now)?

The Labour party is being swamped with accusations of late, mainly to do with the Nazi logo, like this one they compared the Nazi logo with the fur trade. Then all of the whingers flock to Twitter to make the 'offenders' bow down. Surely though, the fur trade is just as bad as a logo, even worse imo. In all honesty, a lot of people wouldn't know the connection with the fur trade in that news article.

What about the usage of other 'evil' logos like the pentagram?

The fact it was 100 years ago and not as well documented?

Also allo allo

 

[dowie]

Because the Stalinist view of communism viewed the state as needing to have the strength to counter the counter-revolutionaries that Stalin believed would appear as a nation transitioned to full communism. The counter Stalin believed in was the use of force by the state. Stalin’s views also influenced Mao Zedong, another one of communism’s mass murderers. Stalin believed in himself over the party as a whole.

Most of the atrocities occurring under communism in the 20th century can be linked back to Stalin and his particular version of communism.

Again the above is my limited understanding of the matter and I’m happy to be proved wrong.

I'm asking why you think you couldn't make a similar argument re: National Socialism? Blame the holocaust on some of the Nazi leadership.

 

[cheesyboy]

Dowie in acting-stupid-to-keep-the argument-rolling-endlessly shocker.

 

[cheesyboy]

But I'm not saying your argument re: communism is wrong in an historical sense per say. I'm highlighting that you could also make the argument re: national socialism that blames the atrocities on Nazi leadership in Germany and just supports the general ideology (in fact there are modern day "national socialists" who actually try to do this).

This is where the shark got jumped, by the way

Where dowie, realising there was no mileage in siding with the Nazis, widened it to 'national socialism'. A common Dowie sleight of hand.

And look, we've had some very sensible people make very coherent arguments on a complete sidetrack to the original point.

And still Dowie carries on picking a new thread....

 

[neil_g]

I guess the holocaust didn't help the nazis pr for starters?

 

[Pudney]

I'm asking why you think you couldn't make a similar argument re: National Socialism? Blame the holocaust on some of the Nazi leadership.

Which is the point where I asked you what you mean by national socialism. The UK national socialist party were communists/Marxists who joined with the Labour Party. They are very different national socialists in all ways to the Nazi party.

 

[Caracus2k]

Glad to see the usual Socialist apologists out in force (thoose of the Marxist persuasion not the nationalist)

Surprised we haven't seen the 'Stalin was actually right wing' argument deployed yet!

@Safetytrousers

'communism' absolutely does 'in its essence' target groups of people for ill treatment....

The bourgeois for starters! The very essence of the sort of socialism designed to lead to the eutopian end goal of communism (which has never actually existed) is violent class struggle between two groups (the bourgeoisie and the proletariat) 'National' socialism merely substitutes class struggle for one primarily based around nationality.

Just look at the red terror circa 1918-1921 for a rather mild example of for a more extreme one look at the millions of people killed by the 'communist' Khmer Rouge in pursuit of their Socialist goal of an 'equal' agrarian society.... (which meant that even 'intellectuals' fell into the 'out' group to be exterminated)

Its always funny to observe the usual nodding donkeys churning out the same lines every time socialism turns up in threads.....

'The USSR was fine under Lenin(ism) it was only when Stalin(ism) came along that it turned bad...'

'Venezuela was a Socialist success story and a beacon to the west under Chavez(ism) it only fell to pieces one Maduro turned up'

Even if these assertions where true (which they are not) you are still left with the rather problematic fact that these Socialist nirvana's seen awfully susceptible to being taken over by leaders who are variously mass murdering /oppressive /incompetent...... Hardly a stunning endorsement for the ideology that seems to repeatedly suffer this sort of failure.

In answer to the thread title ww2 may be more controversial then ww1 because the Nazi's intentionally targeted a particular groups for an attempt at absoute extermination (the Jews) and went about it is some very gruesome ways in an era when mass media was just starting to take off so the atrocities themselves (or there results) could be recorded and shown to the a far wider audience.

Ww1 generally lacked (Armenian genocide excepted) any such similar actions and the aforementioned genocide happened somewhat on the periphery of the conflict and wasn't as well reported on as matters in ww2 were and lacked some of the more extreme elements like mass gassing in chambers and gruesome medical experimentation.

 

[Freakbro]

Oh god, who mentioned marxists

It's like mentioning 'Austerity' and Dolph immediately appearing...

 

[Freakbro]

Because the Stalinist view of communism viewed the state as needing to have the strength to counter the counter-revolutionaries that Stalin believed would appear as a nation transitioned to full communism. The counter Stalin believed in was the use of force by the state. Stalin’s views also influenced Mao Zedong, another one of communism’s mass murderers. Stalin believed in himself over the party as a whole.

Most of the atrocities occurring under communism in the 20th century can be linked back to Stalin and his particular version of communism.

Again the above is my limited understanding of the matter and I’m happy to be proved wrong.

I love the self deprecating manner of your posts while the content simultaneously shows you know more about the subject than 90% of the people on here

 

[Caracus2k]

Oh god, who mentioned marxists

It's like mentioning 'Austerity' and Dolph immediately appearing...

Communism, Lenin and Stalin were mentioned by others.... It like moaning that someone mentions national socialism or nazism when the politics and or ideology of Hitler or Mussolini are brought up...

You can't really discuss the ideology of communism, Lenin or Stalin without refence to marxism.

 

[Caracus2k]

I love the self deprecating manner of your posts while the content simultaneously shows you know more about the subject than 90% of the people on here

Others see it as the apologist drivel it is......

'Socialism was just great till Stalin rocked up and ruined it!'

Which rather ignores that it was the socialist system than enabled a ruthless mass murdering psychopath like Stalin to get his hands on such totalitarian power as socialism requires!

And more so that Socialist systems will always tend towards being ruled by the most ruthless of individuals because of the centralisation of power the ideology requires to exist.

 

[Freakbro]

Others see it as the apologist drivel it is.....

Lol yea right m8....your hysterical phobia about "Socialism" clouds your vision somewhat and you obviously don't know Pudney to be calling him an apologist

 

[Caracus2k]

Lol yea right m8....your hysterical phobia about "Socialism" clouds your vision somewhat and you obviously don't know Pudney to be calling him an apologist

Its the usual drivel that attempts to scapegoat all of socialisms failures in this area onto Stalin(ism).

The horrors of (Marxist) socialism where present in the USSR before stalin came to power.... He just accelerated the process already in motion