From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: ontical history
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:28:03 +0000


Rene de Bakker wrote:

> >> >Germany practically started WWI for
> >> >reasons that had nothing to do with the assasination of Franz 
>Ferdinand
> >>
> >>Germany made important mistakes,
> >
> >"important mistakes"????
>
>Now we're so far that every word leads to confusion. You've cut my 
>sentence,
>which simply said that when you blame one you can blame them all.
>Germany only makes a difference, insofar it became a significant power
>only in the second half of the 19th century, because the Prussians
>assessed what was necessary for Germany to keep on living in
>a nationalistic imperialistic Europe. The 'mistakes' I was talking of, are 
>1. competing in colonies  2. building a fleet  , which
>lead only to England's mistrust, and nothing more (Skagerrak)

Then your reply did not address what I said, because I specifically and 
explicitly referred to (1) Germany's deliberate pressuring of Austro-Hungary 
to make their ultimatum to Serbia so impossibly demanding that they KNEW 
Serbia would never accept it, thereby leading to war with France, and (2) 
Germany's deliberate undermining of all British attempts at peaceful 
mediation with Serbia. When you replied to this by saying that "mistakes 
were made," I therefore assumed you were talking about the things I 
specifically brought up, which were those two things. So to reply by 
referring to other "mistakes" would then not even address my argument for 
German culpability from those two things.

>The analysis of the factual beginning of the war is less interesting, but
>as to that, all in all the fingers are pointing to Russia now.

Still waiting for that text Rene.

>And the most important of all: Germany lied in the middle.
>Then one can permit oneself no "either...or...", but only
>and...and... . Philosophically this is advantegeous

Um, someone can be in the middle and still be an unjustified cause of war. 
Yes tensions had long been building between Russia, Germany, and France. 
That does not change the fact that Germany deliberately triggered the 
explosive release of that tension, by using the assassination of Ferdinand 
as a convenient excuse.

> >Rene YOU were the one who brought up the killing of millions of peasants, 
> >aristocracy, etc., in Russia. I simply reasoned from the criteria that 
>YOU >yourself provided (the killing of millions of peasants...) in your 
>parallel >between America's right to attack today with a German right to 
>attack Russia >at that time, and showed that there's one little problem 
>which breaks your >attempted comparison: millions were also similarly 
>killed in Germany at that >time.
>
>You don't understand. You know about the end of the war and the Russian 
>efforts to export revolution to Germany, Muenchen of all places?
>The fear towards Russia, the KNOWLEDGE that the peasants and shopowners
>had been murdered there so close to Germany, was one of the main propaganda
>weapons of Hitler. But when Nolte brought this in the Historikerstreit, he 
>was
>defamed. Auschwitz HAD to be worse than Gulag.

Ok, but the fact that the Gulag was worse than Auschwitz does not change the 
fact that the same criteria you brought up occurred at Auschwitz too 
(admittedly less in numbers, but still millions of peasants... were killed). 
So your comparison fails, because the standard you yourself brought up would 
then apply not only to Russia, but also to Germany.

>Without all this one cannot understand the period between the 2 ww's,
>and Heidegger made this clear, also after ww2. (Stalin winning a battle
>every day)
>But i began this for this reason: you don't want to be compared with
>Hitler Germany. Then when you say: we are threatened and take action,
>i say: can you imagine Germany felt threatened?  And when you say:
>9/11 is reason enough, then i say: is ww1 (that's where the millions died)
>reason enough, and please study the disaster that is called Versailles 
>treaty,

First of all, I NEVER said that 9/11 is reason enough. Rene it is simply 
willed blindness to characterize in that way the arguments I have been 
giving. I said that Iraq has blatantly violated UN resolutions 687 and 1441 
(thereby violating John's supposed "mitsein"). I also said that the crimes 
against humanity which have occurred in Iraq surpass what Milosevic did, and 
das Man certainly took care of Milosevic, didn't it (without UN approval, I 
might add, and therefore without John's supposed mitsein). I also referred 
to the North Korean parallel. Those are reasons I have explicitly referred 
to, which do not have to do with 9/11, so how you can characterize my 
argument the way you did is simply beyond me.

>The Endloesung began AFTER the Russia campaign. In fact, this war
>gave Hitler the opportunity. thoughtprovoking.

The fact that it began after the Russian campaign does not change the fact 
that it occurred, thereby satisfying the very criterion you gave (killing of 
millions of peasants...). That is enough to break your parallel, because 
then "today's standards" would point at both Russia AND Germany.

Anthony Crifasi


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---