It wasn't really a massacre against the Polish. It was a massacre against the 'inferior' races. Germany/Poland was a war. The mass executions were a massacre.
Last edited:
So what is the boundary - if the opponents are armed and fight back? And then what - does the systematic push-back and elimination and encampment of Native Americans become simply a war of domination and acceptable then? I'm getting confused ...It wasn't really a massacre against the Polish. It was a massacre against the 'inferior' races. Germany/Poland was a war. The mass executions were a massacre.
Main Entry: 1mas·sa·cre
Pronunciation: 'ma-si-k&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French
1 : the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty
Main Entry: 1war
Pronunciation: 'wor
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
This is some rather strange logic. Your right to keep conquered land depends on how you conduct war? Name one war in which no innocent people were killed, in which no women were raped, or other war crimes were commited? These wars don't exist.It wasn't a war. It was a massacre.
The Spanish came with rifle, guns, horses, armor...
For every Spaniard who died 20 or more Indians died.
They killed countless, raped countless, of men, women and children. I think that that isn't a war. That's a massacre. I believe that if Germany would have won the war against Europe (without thinking of the Holocaust) then they would have the right to keep the land. But they massacred millions of people. They raped others and they killed children.
They (the Nazis) don't deserve anything.
Interesting. I sort of agree with you there, but still think that they (redskins) should of done a better job at defending themselves. This goes for aboriginals as well. Poland fought well against Germans (from what i've read). It too was a massacre. But they managed to fight back and regain lost land. And I don't think Poland ever requested an apology from Germany (not 100% sure though).
I might have not understood your question, so tell me...
It's not clear at all and Ionstorm, I know you can't simplify things, I'm trying to point out that we have to remember what happened, so it won't happen again.
All those massacres have to be stopped.
Aren't you forgetting about immigration? All of my great grandparents came here from Europe. That's not that unusual in the US. That means most blacks have deeper roots here than mine. Doesn't Australia have massive immigration too? Here in California the majority will change very soon from white to hispanic due to illegal immigration, and hispanics are already influential.The white ethnic majorities that live in Australia and America today live there in relative wealth and comfort - because their forefathers did what they did. They cannot just say that they have nothing to do with the whole situation because they are still profiting from what their forefathers did.
Sorry mate, I do not see your point? What has immigration to do with it? You immigrate and afterwards you'll either belong to an ethnic majority and prfoit from it, or you'll belong to an ethnic minority yourself and might have your very own problems in a foreign country. You really might clarify the above statement - I don't see the point sorry.Aren't you forgetting about immigration? All of my great grandparents came here from Europe. That's not that unusual in the US. That means most blacks have deeper roots here than mine. Doesn't Australia have massive immigration too? Here in California the majority will change very soon from white to hispanic due to illegal immigration, and hispanics are already influential.
I'm not comparing Hitler's Germany to Australia or the US today. That's absolute nonsense. If you can show me a paragraph where I have written something like that I will remove it at once.Oh, and get real about comparing the US and Australia today to Hitler's Germany, ISS. No way.
I'm not comparing Hitler's Germany to Australia or the US today. That's absolute nonsense. If you can show me a paragraph where I have written something like that I will remove it at once.
My point about immigration is that immigrants don't just assimilate along racial lines. That's not how it works over here, anyway. The Irish faced huge discrimination, for example. Most of them came over here with just the clothes on their backs, and they didn't benefit from anyone else's forefathers.The holocaust means genocide, the colonization of America means genocide, as does the colonization of Australia.
Well, first of all - if that were a direct comparison (which it very obviously is NOT), it would mean that I compared Nazi Germany with a development that took place during 16th, 17th and 18th century in the US and in Australia. In no way would it mean that I'm comparing Hitler's Germany with the US and Australia today. Sorry mate, but that's such a nonsense.The holocaust means genocide, the colonization of America means genocide, as does the colonization of Australia.
My point about immigration is that immigrants don't just assimilate along racial lines. That's not how it works over here, anyway. The Irish faced huge discrimination, for example. Most of them came over here with just the clothes on their backs, and they didn't benefit from anyone else's forefathers.
Ahh ok, I'm sorry then. But you have to understand that English is not my first language. I think it would be clear since I was referring to events in the past. You also have to see that I am not comparing acts of violence, but the consequences that resulted from them. I think there is a big difference. You have to read posts in their context. After all we are not talking about whose crimes were worse, but why victims of crimes are reacting the way they do.OK, I understand the point you're making now. I was confused by your use of the present tense while referring to the past. That's still making comparisons to Hitler's Germany, and I still think it's a stretch.
Exactely. That's why I said that you cannot judge 18th or 19th century imperialism according to modern standards. De Soto was certainly following a different moral compas than Lewis and Clark did, and people nowadays have even higher moral standards.You can expect more from humanity now then you did in the past, especially the distant past. That's called progress. Germany progressed a lot between the 16th century and the 1940's, don't you think?
I try to make my kids appreciate the absolute opulence of life they live in relative to the majority of the world, the lack of fear for their lives on a daily basis and so on.Think about Yugoslavia or Africa for example.
And people are indifferent about it. They don't care it's happening !