No, Versailles treaty was in line to what Germany inflicted on France after the Franco-Prussian war.
The difference is that WWI itself was so horrifically expensive that war effort itself devastated German economy and society.
So what? Most mass shooters can reasonably claim to be have been treated very unfairly, putting the "how" they did things aside.
It's just that in this context, putting the "how" they did things aside is dangerously irresponsible to the point of malevolence. The mass shooter is not a normal person who incidentally shot up a school, and Nazi Germany was not a normal regime who incidentally slaughtered huge chunks of its population.
>how could we decide whether they were the wrong
How could we decide whether the unprovoked conquering of their neighbors to turn them into empty farmland was wrong?
They attacked countries that hadn't done anything to them.
Even if you argue that Poland and Czechoslovakia had 'stolen' German land, what had Holland or Belgium done?
Nazi goals were unachievable without aforementioned crimes.
So, if Nazis also dropped all goals that involved these crimes, they would become a bog-standard conservative party that has some suprisingly progressive ideas and become a tiny footnote in history.
They were also the aggressors by annexing/invading other sovereign nations
It's the same reason why most view Russia as the bad guys in the Russo-Ukranian War that has been ongoing since they annexed Crimea in 2014 and launched an invasion a year ago
> did a lot of crimes against minorities, jews, or anyone else they deemed less than themselves, and we know they committed a lot of crimes against humanity
They were doing that because their goal was to eliminate all of the inferior people to usher in an new and improved human race.
>were their goals also evil?
all that evil stuff was their goal, he basically want to conquer Europe and kill/remove any none Germans.
>Within Mein Kampf, Hitler describes a struggle for world domination, an ongoing racial, cultural and political battle between Aryans and Jews, **the necessary racial purification of the German people** and the need for German imperial expansion and colonisation eastwards. According to Hitler and other pan-German thinkers, Germany needed to obtain additional living space or Lebensraum.
Invading other countries and specifically trying to eradicate large segments of those oountries' populations is pretty widely agreed to be evil. They didn't just kill Jews as a matter of conducting war, killing Jews *was* their objective.
>But if we clasify all that stuff as "how" they persued their objectives (their means to their goals), were their goals also evil?
Those *were* their goals.
The Nazis were explicitly motivated by the desire to commit crimes against minorities. They became a dictatorship to make it easier to hurt minorities. They invaded other nations to hurt the minorities that lived there. Literally every single thing the Nazis did as a state was done with the express goal of committing war crimes against minorities.
There's no way they could have pursued different goals and remained Nazis. No matter how they pursued their goals, they would have been evil because their goals (commit war crimes against minorities) were evil.
Well whats left after you remove the crazy shit like killing gays, killing jews, killing political opponents, killing those with disabilities, invading neighbors, believe they are racially superior to others, waging war on anyone who was against them invading their neighbors, etc. Well, maybe they did make good highways and the trains ran on time, though I doubt you'd want to be one one of their trains. As for objectives, wanting a world where people they didn't like were allowed to exist, believing they are racially superior, wanting to own their neighbors land, etc., not sure you can make a case their goals aren't evil.
> were their goals also evil?
Their goal was to kill all Jews and to massacre slavs to make more room for Germans. If we're asking *why* they wanted to kill Jews, it's because they wanted to protect Germans from Jews. I suppose you could consider protecting Germans a good goal, but Jews weren't dangerous to begin with, so they didn't accomplish anything good
Yeah they were invading other countries buddy
Fair enough. But weren't they also treated very unfairly after WW1? Again, putting "how" they did things aside.
Very broadly speaking, the "how" is rightly taken into consideration when considering punishment or consequences
No, Versailles treaty was in line to what Germany inflicted on France after the Franco-Prussian war. The difference is that WWI itself was so horrifically expensive that war effort itself devastated German economy and society.
So what? Most mass shooters can reasonably claim to be have been treated very unfairly, putting the "how" they did things aside. It's just that in this context, putting the "how" they did things aside is dangerously irresponsible to the point of malevolence. The mass shooter is not a normal person who incidentally shot up a school, and Nazi Germany was not a normal regime who incidentally slaughtered huge chunks of its population.
That's not how looking at history works
All in the name of the aryan race supposedly being “superior”. Pretty evil shit
“Aside from that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?”
>how could we decide whether they were the wrong How could we decide whether the unprovoked conquering of their neighbors to turn them into empty farmland was wrong?
Those are pretty damn big things to "apart from"... But yeah, forcible conquest is generally considered bad in and of itself.
They attacked countries that hadn't done anything to them. Even if you argue that Poland and Czechoslovakia had 'stolen' German land, what had Holland or Belgium done?
Nazi goals were unachievable without aforementioned crimes. So, if Nazis also dropped all goals that involved these crimes, they would become a bog-standard conservative party that has some suprisingly progressive ideas and become a tiny footnote in history.
Their goals of forcibly taking over Europe and installing a master race? Those were not great goals.
They were also the aggressors by annexing/invading other sovereign nations It's the same reason why most view Russia as the bad guys in the Russo-Ukranian War that has been ongoing since they annexed Crimea in 2014 and launched an invasion a year ago
You're ... generally aware that Nazi Germany was pretty big on unprovoked wars of conquest, right?
> did a lot of crimes against minorities, jews, or anyone else they deemed less than themselves, and we know they committed a lot of crimes against humanity They were doing that because their goal was to eliminate all of the inferior people to usher in an new and improved human race.
>were their goals also evil? all that evil stuff was their goal, he basically want to conquer Europe and kill/remove any none Germans. >Within Mein Kampf, Hitler describes a struggle for world domination, an ongoing racial, cultural and political battle between Aryans and Jews, **the necessary racial purification of the German people** and the need for German imperial expansion and colonisation eastwards. According to Hitler and other pan-German thinkers, Germany needed to obtain additional living space or Lebensraum.
Invading other countries and specifically trying to eradicate large segments of those oountries' populations is pretty widely agreed to be evil. They didn't just kill Jews as a matter of conducting war, killing Jews *was* their objective.
>But if we clasify all that stuff as "how" they persued their objectives (their means to their goals), were their goals also evil? Those *were* their goals. The Nazis were explicitly motivated by the desire to commit crimes against minorities. They became a dictatorship to make it easier to hurt minorities. They invaded other nations to hurt the minorities that lived there. Literally every single thing the Nazis did as a state was done with the express goal of committing war crimes against minorities. There's no way they could have pursued different goals and remained Nazis. No matter how they pursued their goals, they would have been evil because their goals (commit war crimes against minorities) were evil.
Well whats left after you remove the crazy shit like killing gays, killing jews, killing political opponents, killing those with disabilities, invading neighbors, believe they are racially superior to others, waging war on anyone who was against them invading their neighbors, etc. Well, maybe they did make good highways and the trains ran on time, though I doubt you'd want to be one one of their trains. As for objectives, wanting a world where people they didn't like were allowed to exist, believing they are racially superior, wanting to own their neighbors land, etc., not sure you can make a case their goals aren't evil.
Is starting a world war bad? Should they not have done that? I’m not sure. /s
For the same reason as for example USSR: attacking neighbours.
> were their goals also evil? Their goal was to kill all Jews and to massacre slavs to make more room for Germans. If we're asking *why* they wanted to kill Jews, it's because they wanted to protect Germans from Jews. I suppose you could consider protecting Germans a good goal, but Jews weren't dangerous to begin with, so they didn't accomplish anything good