Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:15:45 EST
Subject: Heidegger's Kamrat said...



--part1_145.d7d56cc.2bac5c71_boundary
Content-Language: en

In a message dated 20/03/2003 21:43:33 GMT Standard Time,
Villanova-AT-btopenworld.com writes:

Subj: Re: Heidegger's Kamrat said... Date: 20/03/2003 21:43:33 GMT Standard
Time From: Villanova-AT-btopenworld.com (Paul Murphy) Sender:
owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Reply-to:
heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

Paul Murphy eloquently points out:

but, we won the war, we won the fucking war.. let's have a motherfucking
Triumphal March in this area, waving placards, and saying 'fuck you' to
anyone who ain't as gung ho as we is.. What we have to decide is this: were
the Allies morally superior, or was Nuremburg just victor's justice? Now, in
my opinion, that is a tricky question, and by no means clear cut. We know
that the US, UK and USSR had been involved in State terrorism and ethnic
cleansing at one or more points in their history - the US cleansed away
native Americans, the British ethnically cleansed us Irish, and there was the
Stalinist genocide. My conclusion is that Nuremburg was indeed victor's
justice, a matter of revenge.

Jud:
 In my opinion it was victor's justice, simple because it couldn't have been
loser's justice. Can you imagine a victorious Hitler, had he won the war,
saying:

"Achtung!   We've won the war, but now we are going to enter the courts 
meekly as the accused, and let you poor losers try us for war crimes against
you."

Most of the losers were already buried in mass graves anyway, and had he won
no doubt there would have been a lot more mass graves and missing witnesses.
On balance I think that the Allies were morally superior to most Nazis, in
that the crimes the Allies committed, (Dresden, Kassel , etc.) could at least
be defended upon strategic and tit-for-tat grounds, in that the Germans did
the same to many British cities first, (Liverpool, Birmingham, etc.)
Admittedly it was still a crime, and I would not relish the task of trying to
 defend the position again, as I once tried to do to Rene.

The N****  crimes were of a different order completely. The complete
extermination of all the males over fifteen in the Czech village of Lidice
for example, and the systematic, industrialised gassing, shooting, and
hanging of Jews and others in their millions which could not be defended upon
"strategic" grounds, but was simply aimed at eliminating certain "inferior"
ethnic types amongst the populations of Europe. Any idea why the N***
Heidegger never said "Sorry folks" for these crimes his pals committed? I
suppose, not being a "Liberal Historian" he had another version?  Had he
lived perhaps he would have penned the forewords of the many Holocaust denial
books that are becoming available these days?  He may even have written a
book along the lines of:  'The Hitler We Loved and Why.'  by German-born
Canadian hatemonger Ernst Z=C3=BCndel Z=C3=BCndel.   



The British attitude (I prefer the term "English attitude") towards the Irish
was dreadful, but there was no deliberate "ethnic cleansing" went on. The
landlords evicted hundreds of thousands of peasants, who then crowded into
disease-infested workhouses. Just how many of those landlords were themselves
Irish in comparison to "absent English landlords or "British Irish"
landlords) has never (to my knowledge) been revealed =E2=80=94 perhaps you know?
Other landlords paid for their tenants to emigrate, sending hundreds of
thousands of Irish to America and other English-speaking countries. Thousands
of Irish came across to Liverpool to the great benefit of the city. My own
Great Grandfather fled the famine in Northern Ireland to Isle of Man from
whence our family came to Liverpool. But even emigration was no panacea --
shipowners often crowded hundreds of desperate Irish onto rickety vessels
labelled 'coffin ships." In many cases, these ships reached port only after
losing a third of their passengers to disease, hunger and other causes. While
Britain provided much relief for Ireland's starving populace, many Irish
criticised Britain's delayed response -- and further blamed centuries of
British political oppression on the underlying causes of the famine.

 I read all about it years ago, and came to the conclusion that it was a
mixture of sheer aristocratic stupidity and Christian notions of "self help"
(the protestant ethic thing) rather than malice on the part of the British
government morons of the time. There is certainly no evidence that the
government deliberately let the Irish die in order to "get rid of them" or
cleanse them because they were Catholics.



Paul: There are many corroborating historical facts, and these could be
stated, but it would take a great deal of expenditure of thought and ink to
get to watertight definitions of the difference between 'victor's justice'
and 'war crimes trials'. If we simply examine these few facts I have
presented, I think it is obvious that Nuremburg was victor's justice, and
that it was the most ruthless of the two sides that won, not the morally
superior one, as Western Liberal historians intimate.



Jud:

I admit that I have only read the accounts of "Liberal Historians," perhaps
you have read the accounts of the fascist historians or "Illiberal
historians"? If so please let us know the "real story" of what happened. I
did come across a site on the internet which claimed that the holocaust
didn't actually happen - are these sort of historical accounts to which you
refer?



To end on a less serious note,  I am really enjoying the current list
entertainment - the knockabout seriocomedy of the "The Ontic versus the
Ontological Road Show." aren't you? It's like one of those stand-up comedy
shows where fresh-faced aspiring funnymen stumble blinking before the
floodlights to do their stuff, after practising in the bathroom mirror. When
will those guys "get it" that the ontic/ontological dichotomy is nothing more
than a metaphysical fiction - a philosophical  child's comforter (in Britain
we call it a "dummy."

But tell them not to stop - it beats the Rowan & Martin Laugh-In any day. I
particularly enjoy the jokes of the straight man Anthony Rowan, whilst
Baggy-Pants John Martin comes out with some classical side-splitters too. :-)



----- Original Message ----- From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com To:
heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 10:21 PM
Subject: Heidegger's Kamrat said...

One of Comrade Heidegger's erstwhile N*** pals wrote:

"Naturally the common people don't want war... but after all it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That
is easy. All you have to do is to tell them that they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to
danger. It works the same in every country."

--Hermann Goering.

Cheers,

Jud.


<A HREF="http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ ">http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/</A>
Jud Evans - ANALYTICAL INDICANT THEORY.
<A HREF="http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com">http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com


</A>

--part1_145.d7d56cc.2bac5c71_boundary

HTML VERSION: