>all confederates are racists
>all Nazis are genocidal anti semitic maniacs
Why is this viewpoint so common? Why do people seem to ignore that the bulk of these militaries would have been a bunch of kids who had no other choice or had completely isolated reasons
Other urls found in this thread:
books.google.com
sci-hub.la
twitter.com
Good troll test for Veeky Forums here...
mods ban this retard
What?
I mean that's why I'm always weirded out about the Nuremberg trials.
Did they want every nazi to shoot themselves in the head as soon as they were given a gun?
I...really....miss...my....nigger
confusion
(you)
>the bulk of these militaries would have been a bunch of kids who had no other choice or had completely isolated reasons
Doesn't mean they don't deserve to be killed
Thats not at all what I'm arguing here
what the fuck is the meme
>all confederates are racists
The sheer number of pregnant Anne Frankposters who use Confederate flag avatars disproves that theory.
>Why do people seem to ignore that the bulk of these militaries would have been a bunch of kids
Average age of a German soldier in WW2 was 27.
>Why do people seem to ignore that the bulk of these militaries would have been a bunch of kids who had no other choice or had completely isolated reasons
Who even gives a shit about confederate soldiers in the 1860s or nazi soldiers in the 1940s? What's the point in arguing about those people when it's 2017?
It makes it a lot easier to sleep at night.
Average german soldier wasn't a nazi tard.
I think you mean "all confederate soldiers"
And "all wermacht members."
A member of the CSA is probably a racist, but frankly so was everyone else.
A Nazi is categorically anti-semitic by virtue of being a Nazi. It's part of the party platform.
In general, people also like to hate their ideological enemies and struggle to grasp how humans can commit atrocities. Cognitive bias makes generalization and dehumanization easier. If they're an ideologue, they're also more likely to be unreasonable. If I allow myself to be coerced into service because I want to see my wife and kids again, an ideologue is much more likely to fault me for not taking that bullet like a champ. Frankly, humans aren't so self-sacrificing and I think any expectation of that behavior is completely unreasonable.
In short; it's just humans being the tribal animals they are, using the adaptations they have acquired to more comfortably eliminate competing tribes.
Because when you join a military, you're voluntarily making yourself an agent of the state.
What about conscripts, you fucking retard?
why are you on Veeky Forums
I think my question comes from me not having understanding of the distinction between nazi soldier and german soldier even though both existed at the same time
In the nuremburg trials did we trial and sentence to death regular german soldiers? that seems immoral
They should have chosen to die like dogs. Duh.
Just because they were impressed into service doesn't mean their autonomy was siezed like their body. They could have chosen to resist at any time.
And I will fault them for not holding my precise moral beliefs, as my criteria are the only moral criteria that matter, and those who act outside of them should be put to death. :^)
(I'm not the user you replied to.)
The CSA barely conscripted. Only about 12% of CSA troops were conscripts.
(Honestly I'm both of them, I made that post and then thought a bit and realized how retarded it was)
What about the Wehrmacht?
The nazis, National Socialists, were the party in power in Germany. The Wermacht was their military. As is the case with most modern militaries, the soldier does not have to be politically aligned with the leadership, only with the nation, in order to serve.
I never studied the Nuremburg trials in anything other than a cursory manner. If I recall correctly, it was only German high command and personnel involved in the holocaust that were tried. Hans Average just went home.
don't have numbers for them.
>I think my question comes from me not having understanding of the distinction between nazi soldier and german soldier even though both existed at the same time
Because there wasn't one really. The average German soldier was very supportive of Nazi doctrine. Even after the war when 5 million German soldiers were dead and Nazism was utterly discredited, about 30-40% of Germans in the region that voted the least for the Nazis (the south) still said that Poles and Jews needed to be annihilated for the safety of Germany.
>Did they want every nazi to shoot themselves in the head as soon as they were given a gun?
wat, half of the people on trial at nuremburg didn't even get sentenced to death, and several were given sentences of 10 years or less
there were some controversial rulings, but for the most part it wasn't even that cruel
No. I did want to make the satire perfectly clear though. I was contributing nothing of value, so I'd rather jeer from the sidelines rather than interrupt discussion by confusing you.
Yes. But much of what I've read indicates that the average southerner, not being a slave owner, was primarily motivated by property rights. "If they're coming for the slaves, then what's next?" People find this implausible, but I don't think its so crazy. When you grow up with the insititution of slavery, that's *normal.* And the slippery slope argument is alive and well, even today. To most of the world, the thought of an armed populace is absurd. Yet it is the norm in the states, and that same argument is being put forward against gun control, for better or worse. Personally, I think the slippery slope is a strong argument, because that's typically how things go - a little bit at a time. But the viability of that argument is a separate discussion entirely.
And of course, assigning motivations to historical actions opens up a whole different can of worms.
>Yes. But much of what I've read indicates that the average southerner, not being a slave owner, was primarily motivated by property rights.
Some 40% of southerners were from slave-owning households, with slaveowners being overrepresented in the CSA army. And the majority of officers were from slaveowning households too. They weren't exactly a tiny minority. per "General Lee's Army: From Victory to Collapse":
> Even more revealing was their attachment to slavery. Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders. Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census.
> The attachment to slavery, though, was even more powerful. One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by non family members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders. Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery.
> More than half the officers in 1861 owned slaves and none of them lived with family members who were slaveholders. Their substantial median combined wealth ($5,600) and average combined wealth ($8,979) mirrored that high proportion of slave ownership.
>Some 40% of southerners
*CSA soldiers.
What.
I thought that only the rich plutocrats were slave owners.
God damnit. These days, everyone is accusing everyone else of revisionist history and now I feel like I can't trust anything anymore without consulting an assload of primary sources, which I'm too lazy for. Fuck. I appreciate the information all the same, and I'll see if I can get a copy of that book and skim it at some point, sampling what primary sources I can get my hands on for quality.
At least this shit's less of a problem in the classical, medieval, and pre-historical eras. Those are where I'm primarily interested. Most people don't give a shit about the legitimacy of the Stuart line, whether Martin Luther was a true Christian or just a heretic, or whether Alexander was really great or just an egomaniac.
18 million men served in the Wehrmacht. My guess is that they were mostly conscipt.
>I mean that's why I'm always weirded out about the Nuremberg trials
The Nuremberg trials was mainly aimed at the Nazi leadership, ie the people who were actually behind Germany's genocidal policies. Rank-and-file soldiers weren't targeted unless they were explicitly war criminals.
Or part of criminal organizations like the SS.
>all racism targets jews
Back into the oven, Schlomo
"Nazi" doesn't mean German WW2 soldier, it means a NSDAP member. No idea why Amerimutts don't understand the difference.
>they were just following orders
don't mean much when they think of jews as rats and treat them like vermin. They all knew what they were doing.
>only the rich people were slave owners
where did you get your schooling from? union side of confed side?
I heard the same thing
I honestly would not be surprised if we're both victims of the rich surviving confederates who demanded history books show the confederacy in as pure a light as possible
Neo-Confederates may or may not be racist per se; they can earnestly believe in states rights without believing that you need slavery. But I'd say that 99% of your neo-Confederates are going to also be racist.
Being a racist is kind of part of being a Nazi since the whole Aryanism thing and Jew hating is a central pole of Nazi ideology. By definition you cannot be a Nazi without also being a racist anti-semite.
Because they were early attempts to stem the tide of liberalism that was drowning the world.
If you are fighting against liberalism, you are going to be following in their footsteps, carrying the banner of freedom against liberal tyranny
What do you think the Nuremburg trials were about exactly user?
There is nothing wrong with the confederacy.
Slavery is part of the natural order, and was only abolished for commercial reasons.
If abolition was to help blacks, why are there more blacks in prison right now than there were slaves during the civil war
Nah
Unfortunately this report from 15 December doesn't specify any years later than 1914 (29 years old) but generally the trend was that the younger you were, the more likely you would be placed in combat units, taking part in the more brutal aspects of the war. There was a drop in birthrates during 1914-1918 and therefore a much lower manpower pool available for that age group, so it's safe to assume from this graph that most soldiers in combat formations were born after 1918 (25 years old or younger) in 1943, and the older ones were located more in supply and security troops.
Difference is that the blacks in prison actually committed crimes.
>be me
>history class
>romanian
>so every one is a little right wing,except my teacher,she is an american libtard
>always telling us that the axis members were just criminal,the soviets did jackshit in WW2
>one day she was very slaty telling us about how the nazis always killed jews
>tell her about pic related
>"user that must be fake"
>"with all respect miss here you are wrong"
>show her some books i got on the subject
>she flips out
I was preety lucky that she passed me.
How new are you?
How does that contradict the fact that Nazis killed Jews?
appeal to nature fallacy
This idea that the average Wehrmacht soldier was just some reluctant schmuck who got dragged into war is really quite weird.
>oh jeez, my country is on the warfooting, looks like I **have** to go to poland and oppress the local populace
>oh man, i just want to go home and jerk off, but now I **have** to bomb london or else i won't get my paycheck
>oh boy, i have to march hundreds of miles into the heart of russia whilst slaughtering civilians along the way and fighting a bitter war of attrition with my disgusting sub-human enemies, but i **really** just want to be looking after my dog, you know what im saying?
I don't know numbers for the entire war, but from May 1939 to May 1941 7,387,500 men served in the Wehrmacht, of which 6,844,267 were conscripted up to that time, so that would mean 92% of soldiers were conscripts.
My bad,i should have typed all jews
Woah you totally btfo that dumb libtard teacher bro! Truly epic!
*upvotes you*
Do you know how armies work?
So are you all saying every person sentenced to death in Nuremburg was a bad guy?
You are literally subhuman.
Of course not. That doesn't mean that they didn't participate in war crimes though, which most of them did.
Didn't the Nazis kill defectors? I know during the Vietnam war draft dodging got you arrested
mostly because its used by nutcases as their symbol nowdays.
>Didn't the Nazis kill defectors?
Yes, as well as your family.
Yes, the Wehrmacht was pretty harsh on deserters; they executed between 16,000-18,000 of them during the war. More than half found guilty of deserting were sentenced to death, and of that more than 64% were executed.
sci-hub.la
Good job mate.
This. As much as people say "just following orders wasn't a valid excuse", it explicitly was at Nuremburg if you a low enough rank because they knew the regime would threaten not just you but your family if you didn't comply, so they had no choice. It's when you are higher up on the ladder and did it anyway, that your excuse doesn't hold.
She was beautiful man, you don't understand.
>DA SOUTH WAS EBIL RAYSIS
Niggers were 2nd class citizens until the goddamn 1960s. No one on either side of the war fought for the sake of racial equality.
Wow didn't realize I was on r/selfharm