Sir Patrick Moore attacks Germany he still HATES it after 70 years

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Capt'n Midnight

haminka wrote: »

I even read opinions of some truly mentally challenged muppets who actually blamed Japanese bad karma from WW2 for the earthquake and tsunami. The moronism was mind-blowing.

How worried will they be when they realise how much bad karma could go with the genocide of the original inhabitants of North America ?

steddyeddy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How worried will they be when they realise how much bad karma could go with the genocide of the original inhabitants of North America ?

Of which many americans still hold racist views towards.

foxyboxer

haminka wrote: »

I think that's completely understandable. He is an old man who has seen pretty ugly things and who had ugly things happen to him during the war, who are we to judge him?
I think the only reason why it came up is the new anti-German propaganda anyway /which I find rather funny considering the fact that Ireland was in fact a silent supporter of Germany during the war and the Irish veterans who fought against Nazi Germany haven't been officially recognized as war heroes yet AFAIK/ but hey, the referendum is coming, keep it up.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1231/1224309675044.html

prinz

Delancey wrote: »

While Patrick Moores attitudes are disappointing we must remember that he served in the War and saw what it was all about. I don't think we can judge him - we weren't there.

I've met people who served in the war, and if any of them came out with this sort of rubbish I'd be appalled. Guess what though? They don't.

Delancey

Aquila wrote: »

On the opposite scale of the spectrum,i once talked to a former member of the Waffen SS ,who still to this day sees no wrong with the "social programs" introduced to deal with the "gypsy problem''

Given some of the posts that appear on Traveller / Gypsy threads I guess After Hours has more than a few former SS members posting !!

Duggys Housemate

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It's a charter for thought crime. It's already gone way too far in Europe, where people can be jailed for things like holding views deemed to be racist or for questioning the holocaust.
Ironically, such laws actually encourage the views they're designed to suppress, because people start wondering "Why can't I question the holocaust like other historical events? Maybe there's something in this.'

This bit is true. A non-political friend of mine - a guy who never read a book, or newspapers, a rugger bugger, wondered why David Iriving was being denied a platform for his views.

There must be something in it so, he said.

Meaning if it was easy to refute they would. It turned out he was refuted in court, however he should have been attacked in debate. It is, however, much easier to protest than debate.

prinz

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Meaning if it was easy to refute they would. It turned out he was refuted in court, however he should have been attacked in debate. It is, however, much easier to protest than debate.

There are two quotes applicable here..

"Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

and

"Never argue with an idiot. . . he will drag you down to his level and then beat you on experience."

Debating with holocaust deniers actually gives their position an aspect of credibility and respect. It deserves neither.

Duggys Housemate

prinz wrote: »

There are two quotes applicable here..

"Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

and

"Never argue with an idiot. . . he will drag you down to his level and then beat you on experience."

Debating with holocaust deniers actually gives their position an aspect of credibility and respect. It deserves neither.

Both arguments are trite - jokey dinner party statements not meant to be taken seriously. If you argue with a fool and lose, then you are not that smart. We expect the smart, and the correct, to win arguments.

In any case there are revisionists on all historical events except one. How bad was slavery, how many died in the Crusades, was the Irish famine the fault of the British, how responsible is Britain for the Bengal famine, how many people died in the Mao Mao rebellion ( all of these are sectarian or racial atrocities), and so on. All should be open to debate, and all are except one.

Nodin

bwatson wrote: »

I think you actually are reinforcing my point with this dictionary defenition, notably the bolded parts. British society was scarred immeasurably and without exception Britain's most important centres of economy, industry and culture were flattened beyond recognition.

.......and now you're starting to exagerate, despite the fact that nothing needs to be exaggerated in this instance for it to be considered a horrendous act and experience for the victims.

Bwatson wrote:

The decimation of London, Birmingham, Cardiff, Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool, Belfast, Southampton, Coventry and so on, and so on, and so on... left Britain as a country and a society unrecognizable following the conclusion of the war

(In the book you read, did the Germans win?)

More hot air. Westminister flattened? Nope. The capitals bridges all destroyed? Nope. Industry eradicated? Nope. Was all roses and hugs? Of course not, so why this apocalyptic narrative....

Bwatson wrote:

Once again, the reference to Russia. What is with it? What is the relevance?

Your use of inaccurate langauage showing a complete ignorance of scale, I'd imagine. You seem to be getting worse as the thread goes on, despite a reasonable start.

We could refer to a single night elsewhere, for instance - The Firebombing of Tokyo. Total casualties for the Blitz were 40,000 (approx). On the night/morning of 9/10th March a bombing raid on Tokyo killed a minimum of 100,000. 15 square miles (approx) of Tokyo was levelled.

prinz

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Both arguments are trite - jokey dinner party statements not meant to be taken seriously. If you argue with a fool and lose, then you are not that smart. We expect the smart, and the correct, to win arguments..

We expect the smart to win arguments, but if they did always we wouldn't have had the problems of fascism to begin with would we? Often times debates come down to who shouts the loudest, who most quickly resorts to populist rhetoric etc etc.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

In any case there are revisionists on all historical events except one. How bad was slavery, how many died in the Crusades, was the Irish famine the fault of the British, how responsible is Britain for the Bengal famine, how many people died in the Mao Mao rebellion ( all of these are sectarian or racial atrocities), and so on. All should be open to debate, and all are except one.

There is a difference, usually historians take the evidence and work backwards to come to a figure of how many died and often there is discrepancies in methods etc. I have read plenty of works on the Third Reich and the Holocaust, and some legitimately come to different figures of victims. Nobody has issue with that, so it is a topic that's open to debate.

The difference with people like David Irving is that he has a conclusion in mind and bends the evidence to fit his own prejudices. Have you read any of the ruling in his libel case? Let me show you some..

Not only has he denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and asserted that no Jew was gassed there, he has done so on frequent occasions and sometimes in the most offensive terms

The charges which I have found to be substantially true include the charges that Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/apr/11/irving1

That's not debate. Irving should be given no credible platform to promote his poison, no matter how wrong he is.

Duggys Housemate

prinz wrote: »

We expect the smart to win arguments, but if they did always we wouldn't have had the problems of fascism to begin with would we? Often times debates come down to who shouts the loudest, who most quickly resorts to populist rhetoric etc etc.

There is a difference, usually historians take the evidence and work backwards to come to a figure of how many died and often there is discrepancies in methods etc. I have read plenty of works on the Third Reich and the Holocaust, and some legitimately come to different figures of victims. Nobody has issue with that, so it is a topic that's open to debate.

The difference with people like David Irving is that he has a conclusion in mind and bends the evidence to fit his own prejudices. Have you read any of the ruling in his libel case? Let me show you some..




http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/apr/11/irving1

That's not debate. Irving should be given no credible platform to promote his poison, no matter how wrong he is.

You are quoting from a judge who heard Irving's own defence and a counter argument. In other words there was an adversarial debate. Irving lost. Students take note. This is what I mean. Anyway, off topic a bit.

Nodin

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

You are quoting from a judge who heard Irving's own defence and a counter argument. In other words there was an adversarial debate. Irving lost. Students take note. This is what I mean. Anyway, off topic a bit.

So you discount all the evidence that was produced showing the evidence for the bolded parts of the quotations there..?

Duggys Housemate

Nodin wrote: »

So you discount all the evidence that was produced showing the evidence for the bolded parts of the quotations there..?

Where did I say that. Can you read? Are you following the debate between me and Prinz at all? Read it and get back to me.

Dermighty

Aquila wrote: »

On the opposite scale of the spectrum,i once talked to a former member of the Waffen SS ,who still to this day sees no wrong with the "social programs" introduced to deal with the "gypsy problem''

I don't either when it comes to those thieving Roma ****s that go begging every day even though they they do **** all but rob people anyway.

Nodin

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Where did I say that. Can you read? Are you following the debate between me and Prinz at all? Read it and get back to me.

Well obviously I'm too thick to work it out for myself, so if you'd condascend to explain it to me, I'd be greatfull.

Nodin

Dermighty wrote: »

I don't either when it comes to those thieving Roma ****s that go begging every day even though they they do **** all but rob people anyway.

Well aren't you the feisty fellow. I dare say the Tastaturkrieger division could have used that spirit during the war.

Wibbs

Aquila wrote: »

On the opposite scale of the spectrum,i once talked to a former member of the Waffen SS ,who still to this day sees no wrong with the "social programs" introduced to deal with the "gypsy problem''

Similarly many moons ago(early 80's) I knew a guy whose grandfather was also in the SS. Interesting chap the grandfather. Gave a new angle on the whole thing. For a start he joined the (Waffen) SS (at 18 IIRC) because they were considered to be the best, the most illustrious arm of the military. Very little to do with the minutiae of politics for most young men brought up on the guts and glory stuff of nations with a bias/admiration for their military. You even hear similar from British and US troops today in the wars in the middle east. Politics is little of it. These things are rarely so clear cut.

He fully admitted supporting Hitler. He admired the man immensely. He had even met him at some rally or other before the war and found him both personable and very knowledgeable. One thing I recall him saying about Adolf that impressed him and others, was that unlike other high ranking types, he never wore the military medals he was entitled to wear. He didn't invent a few either, unlike Goering(they seemed to really think he was a twat. Goebbels too).

I actually asked him straight out about the "Jewish question". His answer surprised me. He was convinced about Jewish bankers ruining Germany alright. That scapegoat propaganda BS worked well and ran deep. However he also said he thought that the majority of those killed were ordinary people, even dirt poor people not unike his own family and reckoned that was beyond daft, pointless and barbaric. That the "real Jews" as he put it had long escaped. The real surprise for me was his support for the state of Israel. I kid thee not. Mad. He couldn't see the surreality of that position. He actually reserved his greatest vitriol for Communists and reckoned the allies should have rearmed the German army and together should have driven the Russians into the Volga. He had the same attitude towards Communists as Moore would have towards him. An attitude often enough echoed among the various allies too.

prinz

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

You are quoting from a judge who heard Irving's own defence and a counter argument. In other words there was an adversarial debate. Irving lost. Students take note. This is what I mean. Anyway, off topic a bit.

There was adversarial debate, a lot of evidence and people with an ounce of cop on could see him for who he really is. However (and it's a big one) if you go back to your original point..

This bit is true. A non-political friend of mine - a guy who never read a book, or newspapers, a rugger bugger, wondered why David Iriving was being denied a platform for his views. There must be something in it so, he said.

So this friend is going to come to a conclusion on the happening of the holocaust, simply because one historian is ignored?

Do you think your same friend is going be convinced by an academic debate between historians? After all a debate on the Holocaust isn't going to be investigating Irving's background in the British Union of Fascists (or whatever group he was associated with), a debate on the Holocaust isn't going to be privy to the mountains of information on Irving that the court was exposed to.

So just what is it about a debate do you think is suddenly going to convince your friend that Irving is a few pence short of a pound and basing his view of history on the fact that he is an anti-Semitic frog? What makes you think a committed ideologically driven twat like Irving would lose a debate? He keeps to his position, the opposition tell a different story....... voices get raised. Nobody actually learns anything.

Frankly all I'd see is people with their own pre-formed anti-semitism buying into Irving's revisionist nonsense because he is telling them what they already want to hear. He would not convincing them because he is an excellent historian well capable of debate. He would convince them because he is feeding their own prejudice. The best thing to do with Irving is sideline him where he can stick to peddling his shíte to knuckle-draggers.

Morlar

Wibbs wrote: »

...He had the same attitude towards Communists as Moore would have towards him. An attitude often enough echoed among the various allies too.

I think it's interesting how this thread is a constant blurring of the lines between nationality and ideology. Would he have had the same attitude to Russian people as Moore had towards German people ? It's possible that he would, but I think in the main the significant venom was reserved for the ideology and party Apparatchik.

bwatson

Morlar wrote: »

I think it's interesting how this thread is a constant blurring of the lines between nationality and ideology. Would he have had the same attitude to Russian people as Moore had towards German people ? It's possible that he would, but I think in the main the significant venom was reserved for the ideology and party Apparatchik.

However, it wasn't just nazis who were fighting for the wehrmacht or flying in the luftwaffe during "the emergency"... So its not quite as simple as saying that his grievance should be solely with the party or the ideology.

It wasn't me!

bwatson wrote: »

However, it wasn't just nazis who were fighting for the wehrmacht or flying in the luftwaffe during "the emergency"... So its not quite as simple as saying that his grievance should be solely with the party or the ideology.

Yes, but there are precious few of those who actually fought left alive. Anyone who didn't should be beyond irrational hatred like his.

Morlar

bwatson wrote: »

However, it wasn't just nazis who were fighting for the wehrmacht or flying in the luftwaffe during...

Except no one has said that was the case. Another fact omitted is the question of how many of those non party members volunteered for national army service or were conscripted ? Also worth realising is that the 18 year old of 1939 had never voted in their life, (nor had anyone under 25 years old for that matter).

Nodin

bwatson wrote: »

However, it wasn't just nazis who were fighting for the wehrmacht or flying in the luftwaffe during "the emergency"... So its not quite as simple as saying that his grievance should be solely with the party or the ideology.

.....while thats undeniably the case, it hardly justifies the notion of some 'racial' guilt on the part of the German people seven decades down the line. The man experienced war and developed views because of it, and while its not for me to tell somebody how they feel, I do find it hard to understand why people are trying to rationalise irrational emotional attitudes.

Dudess

sheesh wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

He is entitled to blame millions for something they didn't do/weren't even alive for, nonsensical and all as that is, and others are entitled to express the view that it's ****ing stupid and ignorant and bigoted.

I didn't say he was right but given his experiences it is understandable. Even if it is stupid ignorant and bigotted.

Although I suppose you are right, he should just get over it! Even if it was his wife It was 60 years ago.

I'd be interested to see where I said anything that could be construed as saying he should just get over it...

haminka

Dermighty wrote: »

I don't either when it comes to those thieving Roma ****s that go begging every day even though they they do **** all but rob people anyway.

One thing is to ignore them. Another is to believe that their ethnicity and way of life entitles you to send them to gas chambers.
Nazis also firmly believed in collective blame. If you want to see one of the best movies about the WW2, watch Idi i smotri - there's two translations of the title, Go and See or Come and See. I saw the movie once and I don't think I will ever be able to watch it again. It is based on real life experiences of common people in White Russia during the WW2.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

Morlar wrote: »

I think it's interesting how this thread is a constant blurring of the lines between nationality and ideology. Would he have had the same attitude to Russian people as Moore had towards German people ? It's possible that he would, but I think in the main the significant venom was reserved for the ideology and party Apparatchik.

Oh christ yea he hated, well more looked down on Russian people. Not too surprising as they had the idea they were untermensch(subhuman) rammed into their head for years. One of Hitlers biggest if not the biggest blunder he made IMHO. I reckon given how Stalin had screwed his own people and other historical issues if the Nazi mindset had been more "Roman" and accepted White Russians into the fold the outcome might have been very different.

haminka wrote: »

If you want to see one of the best movies about the WW2, watch Idi i smotri - there's two translations of the title, Go and See or Come and See.

+1000 one of my fave movies of all time. Russian cinema overall is one of the finest on the planet anyway IMHO, but that one is right at the top.

Show Time

Wibbs wrote: »

Similarly many moons ago(early 80's) I knew a guy whose grandfather was also in the SS. Interesting chap the grandfather. Gave a new angle on the whole thing. For a start he joined the (Waffen) SS (at 18 IIRC) because they were considered to be the best, the most illustrious arm of the military. Very little to do with the minutiae of politics for most young men brought up on the guts and glory stuff of nations with a bias/admiration for their military. You even hear similar from British and US troops today in the wars in the middle east. Politics is little of it. These things are rarely so clear cut.

He fully admitted supporting Hitler. He admired the man immensely. He had even met him at some rally or other before the war and found him both personable and very knowledgeable. One thing I recall him saying about Adolf that impressed him and others, was that unlike other high ranking types, he never wore the military medals he was entitled to wear. He didn't invent a few either, unlike Goering(they seemed to really think he was a twat. Goebbels too).

I actually asked him straight out about the "Jewish question". His answer surprised me. He was convinced about Jewish bankers ruining Germany alright. That scapegoat propaganda BS worked well and ran deep. However he also said he thought that the majority of those killed were ordinary people, even dirt poor people not unike his own family and reckoned that was beyond daft, pointless and barbaric. That the "real Jews" as he put it had long escaped. The real surprise for me was his support for the state of Israel. I kid thee not. Mad. He couldn't see the surreality of that position. He actually reserved his greatest vitriol for Communists and reckoned the allies should have rearmed the German army and together should have driven the Russians into the Volga. He had the same attitude towards Communists as Moore would have towards him. An attitude often enough echoed among the various allies too.

During the closing months of the war on the western front the one thing that shocked and surprised the American GI's was the amount of requests they received from German POW's to take up arms with the Americans against the Russians. The German troops knew that at least on the western front that surrender was an option unlike the east where it was kill or be killed.

Lionel Messy

His own country doesn't exactly have a history of peace and love. He should look a bit closer to home, the bitter old fart.

prinz

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh christ yea he hated, well more looked down on Russian people. Not too surprising as they had the idea they were untermensch(subhuman) rammed into their head for years. One of Hitlers biggest if not the biggest blunder he made IMHO. I reckon given how Stalin had screwed his own people and other historical issues if the Nazi mindset had been more "Roman" and accepted White Russians into the fold the outcome might have been very different..

They did. Tens of thousands of Russians fought with the German side, White Russians, Cossacks, ethnic groups from all over Caucasus. The Victims of Yalta is an excellent book on this. They all tended to surrender directly to the western allies hoping for anti-Communist support, but they were handed back to the USSR and met untimely deaths by being often times machine gunned en masse within earshot of the US and British minutes after being handed over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victims_of_Yalta

Also important to remember that in a lot of places when the Wehrmacht got there first they were welcomed like liberators for driving out the Soviets who had occupied the Baltic states etc. Of course they quickly undid any goodwill towards Germany when the frontline troops were pushed on into Russia, and the SS/Gestapo/etc took their place in the occupied areas and started to massacre.

Capt'n Midnight

prinz wrote: »

They did. Tens of thousands of Russians fought with the German side, White Russians, Cossacks, ethnic groups from all over Caucasus.

Recruitment procedure in some cases was fairly simple.

Line the lads up.

German office asks the first in line would he like to fight for Germany.

When he refuses <BANG>, then asks the next guy..

TeddyTedson

Moore is an idiot.

Just goes to show you that even people who are regarded as quite clever are still capable of saying the most retarded things.

Latchy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Recruitment procedure in some cases was fairly simple.

Line the lads up.

German office asks the first in line would he like to fight for Germany.

When he refuses <BANG>, then asks the next guy..

German efficiency for ya ...they knew how to get things done .:pac: