Thai Student Nazi Dress-Up Day Causes Outrage

[cardholder]

So, Nisa. You found the parade acceptable ?

Yes or No

Not to answer for Nisa but I do not think it ( the parade ) deserving of the overstated emotionalism that this thread has generated.

To answer your question, Yes, because that parade was lacking any Nazi intent and had no hidden agenda or point.

It was just stupid.

Try and get over it.

Not acceptable, just happened and , with luck the same silliness won't be repeated.

To transpose the actions of ill educated 14 year olds into the second world war is stretching it a bit.

You have missed my point entirely.

I have no objection to fashion fads and I would not seek to impose my (fashion/dress) views on people in another country.

What I find unacceptable is, what I believe to be, the ignorance of the teachers. I am aware from speaking to teachers in other areas that this style of parade was widely being encouraged - now THAT sounds a little more dangerous than the innocence/ignorance of 14 year olds 'dressing up' on their own initiative.

Edited October 14, 2011 by sbk
try not to screw up the quotes

[Nisa]

You have missed my point entirely.

I have no objection to fashion fads and I would not seek to impose my (fashion/dress) views on people in another country.

What I find unacceptable is, what I believe to be, the ignorance of the teachers. I am aware from speaking to teachers in other areas that this style of parade was widely being encouraged - now THAT sounds a little more dangerous than the innocence/ignorance of 14 year olds 'dressing up' on their own initiative.

Sounds like you are looking for reasons to get yourself worked up over something that we know little about except that a reasonable person would clearly assume there was no ill intent or motivations to promote Nazi beliefs happening at the school ... in fact, there seems to be some at least some suggestion (based on the poster) they were using the evil the nazis represent to make some statement about other world leaders. What is clear is they don't hold the uniforms and symbols of the Nazis to have some voodoo type power that some want to give these items.

I really could care less if somebody has Nazi beliefs and expresses those beliefs in a non-violent manner but I would certainly find these people to be more offensive than a bunch of kids playing dress up at school to make some kind of statement, that almost certainly didn't involve the advocacy of harming anyone.

As for if I found the parade acceptable? Nobody has bothered to find out what statement the kids were trying to say but if it is along the lines of what I now assume, I have no issue with their use of the Nazi costumes. If my assumptions are right then I find it more acceptable to be done in Thailand and other areas of the world because of the views/teaching of WW2 as a war as opposed to the stressing of a holocaust. However, I don't find it "acceptable" (but accept it) for anyone to use the Hitler or Nazi card to make a point/comparison to protest something or somebody because 99.99% of the time it is not even a remotely close comparison.

[kerryk]

I find that rather surprising, I asked my Thai husband if he studied Hitler in school and he said yes, when I asked what did he do he said, he was a german who killed millions of people, so I asked how old he was when he studied this in school and he said about 12 he thought.

I could ask a much broader range of people than just one but given that the Thai curricula is set in stone from the central government, I am assuming if he learned it in school at the time so did a millions other.

The curriculum is set in stone but interpreted freely by each school. Also the 2nd world war is presented from a perspective in the West. It's not objective. In Thailand the events presented to students of the second world war include atrocities from both sides. The annihilation by indiscriminate bombing of large civilian populations in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally very little different to the horrors of extermination camps. However, in the West we are taught that there was a moral justification for them. Thais are taught both sides in the 2nd world war did bad things. Only Christian countries have committed such large scale killings of civilians. In addition, the extermination camps and the allied bombing of civilian populations form only a small part of the events of the 2nd world war.

"The annihilation by indiscriminate bombing of large civilian populations in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally very little different to the horrors of extermination camps."

I can see the Thai education system being a bit backward and not covering history of the world basics but what sort of school system could have produced a student that would come up with the above reasoning.

I know of no country regardless of how twisted or retarded or evil that could have come up with the above quote.

I find it impossible to fathom the mentality of a nation that would allow the above quote to be taught in any school system.

Has anyone ever heard the quoted information in any school system on any level in any school in any country?

To Loaded and Nisa, my question is rather specific but it seems difficult to understand so I will repeat it.

Has anyone ever heard the quoted information in any school system on any level in any school in any country?

Edit. I am not asking about nutter websites of which we all can find backing up any loony ideas we may have I am talking about school systems.

Edited October 15, 2011 by kerryk

[wana]

i know young twenty something thais and often been drinking beers down on the kao san rd and they have no prob wearing army boots and swastica pendants and t-shirts like its some kind of fashion icon

i even seen a fight starting over it one night when a couple of farangs had a problem with it outside the 7-11 beside kao san centre pub and the farangs

soon found themselves on the ground being kicked and stamped on by every thai man in the vicinity before being arrested and most probably fined all their holiday money

... and you found that amusing ? :jerk:

maybe ive been in thailand too long or maybe ive just been here long enough to KNOW not to interfere with a group of thai men drinking beer and tell them aggressively the problems i have with the clothing they are wearing in their country but you obviously know better

pom chak chuck wow low kap..

[Nisa]

I find that rather surprising, I asked my Thai husband if he studied Hitler in school and he said yes, when I asked what did he do he said, he was a german who killed millions of people, so I asked how old he was when he studied this in school and he said about 12 he thought.

I could ask a much broader range of people than just one but given that the Thai curricula is set in stone from the central government, I am assuming if he learned it in school at the time so did a millions other.

The curriculum is set in stone but interpreted freely by each school. Also the 2nd world war is presented from a perspective in the West. It's not objective. In Thailand the events presented to students of the second world war include atrocities from both sides. The annihilation by indiscriminate bombing of large civilian populations in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally very little different to the horrors of extermination camps. However, in the West we are taught that there was a moral justification for them. Thais are taught both sides in the 2nd world war did bad things. Only Christian countries have committed such large scale killings of civilians. In addition, the extermination camps and the allied bombing of civilian populations form only a small part of the events of the 2nd world war.

I think it also may be a generational thing in terms of how much it is covered now compared to when SBK's husband was in school. I'd also be curious to know if he learned everything he knows from school or if he was exposed to more facts outside of school possibly having more exposure to farang resources. I say and wonder this because the kids at university level I speak to now, seem to have an understanding he was a bad guy and leader during the war but not a whole heck of lot beyond that ... at least in terms of creating the devil on earth image we are taught (largely outside of grade school) in the west (or at least the US).

[TAWP]

^^^^ No, that was a different school in Bangkok that did almost the exact same thing 4 years ago.

Thewpaingarm School in Bangkok - 2007

Sacred Heart School in Chiang Mai - 2011.

Funny how they have obscured the faces of the students. Don't tell me the parents got hold of a copy of Munich.

I wish they censored the face of the two first girls too. Yikes.

[StreetCowboy]

Oh my word!

When people talked about Nazi uniforms, I had not realised they were talking about pantomime nazi uniforms. Oh yes, they were!

I am embarrassed about having contributed to such a ridiculous and pointless thread, but sometimes, our own humiliation is necessary that others might appreciate the irrelevance or facility of their own opinion.

It is a sad day when children cannot lampoon nazi uniforms without being subjected to vile abuse by the intolerant and unthinking

SC

[RichardL]

I don't think kids dressing up is quite as serious as some make out. In England, Prince Harry, after all, was rather famously photographed wearing a nazi uniform at a fancy dress party.

I'd be more concerned by the "they were all as bad as each other" sentiment, although you can only change that through education, not through anger. How many are aware any Thai living in Germany back then would have been sent to the camps for extermination without a second's hesitation, with the children possibly experimented on for good measure?

Overall though, if you travel the world you have to accept people around the world will not be aware of historical events important to you, and other events won't have anything like the same significance. It's why people see nothing wrong with selling T-shirts with Osama Bin Laden on them.

[StreetCowboy]

I don't think kids dressing up is quite as serious as some make out. In England, Prince Harry, after all, was rather famously photographed wearing a nazi uniform at a fancy dress party.

I'd be more concerned by the "they were all as bad as each other" sentiment, although you can only change that through education, not through anger. How many are aware any Thai living in Germany back then would have been sent to the camps for extermination without a second's hesitation, with the children possibly experimented on for good measure?

Overall though, if you travel the world you have to accept people around the world will not be aware of historical events important to you, and other events won't have anything like the same significance. It's why people see nothing wrong with selling T-shirts with Osama Bin Laden on them.

What's wrong with a T-shirt with Osama's face on it? Is that worse than Dr Crippen? Boris Karloff? Ronnie Kray? Che Guevera? George Bush? Myra Hyndley? Gneghis Khan? Richard the Lionheart?

What business is it of yours or mine what other people wear? Or are you trying to control what they think, through Orwellian pressure on what they are allowed to do?

SC

[RichardL]

I don't think kids dressing up is quite as serious as some make out. In England, Prince Harry, after all, was rather famously photographed wearing a nazi uniform at a fancy dress party.

I'd be more concerned by the "they were all as bad as each other" sentiment, although you can only change that through education, not through anger. How many are aware any Thai living in Germany back then would have been sent to the camps for extermination without a second's hesitation, with the children possibly experimented on for good measure?

Overall though, if you travel the world you have to accept people around the world will not be aware of historical events important to you, and other events won't have anything like the same significance. It's why people see nothing wrong with selling T-shirts with Osama Bin Laden on them.

What's wrong with a T-shirt with Osama's face on it? Is that worse than Dr Crippen? Boris Karloff? Ronnie Kray? Che Guevera? George Bush? Myra Hyndley? Gneghis Khan? Richard the Lionheart?

What business is it of yours or mine what other people wear? Or are you trying to control what they think, through Orwellian pressure on what they are allowed to do?

SC

Strange response.

OK, it's all about context. The portrayal of a terrorist leader who delighted in the deaths of thousands as some sort of cult figure might well be deemed somewhat crass by many. If you wish to offend then that's your personal choice, but I think people should at least understand why something may be offensive.

I mean yes, you could, if chose, wear a t-shirt in the UK with Myra Hindrey on, with the slogan "Myra - my kind of child murderer!" on it, and you'd get a choice comment or two. IF you were out to shock, then that's your objective - well done. If, on the other hand, you had little idea who Myra Hindley was, and just thought she was some kind of cool 60s retro chick on your t-shirt, you might be glad that someone told you before you went outdoors.

[houseinbkk]

Cant believe there are so many pages on this, i very much doubt these kids think its ok to work people to death or put millions to death in gas chambers.

And if they do the uniform isnt the problem.

[Loaded]

To Loaded and Nisa, my question is rather specific but it seems difficult to understand so I will repeat it.

Has anyone ever heard the quoted information in any school system on any level in any school in any country?

Your question was ignored because it clearly showed your inability to understand my original post. Your quote was my opinion. I am not sure how you managed to twist it to suggest it was used in schools. Never mind.

You clearly believe that the Western perspective of events is the only true one and this is the one presented to school children around the world. This is a very naive opinion. For example, Japanese school children have never even heard of the Nangking massacre. They don't know about the atrocities committed by Japanese troops. In much the same way, Western school children also receive a filtered version of historical events.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Loaded

[kerryk]

To Loaded and Nisa, my question is rather specific but it seems difficult to understand so I will repeat it.

Has anyone ever heard the quoted information in any school system on any level in any school in any country?

Your question was ignored because it clearly showed your inability to understand my original post. Your quote was my opinion. I am not sure how you managed to twist it to suggest it was used in schools. Never mind.

You clearly believe that the Western perspective of events is the only true one and this is the one presented to school children around the world. This is a very naive opinion. For example, Japanese school children have never even heard of the Nangking massacre. They don't know about the atrocities committed by Japanese troops. In much the same way, Western school children also receive a filtered version of historical events.

I completely understood your quote, "The annihilation by indiscriminate bombing of large civilian populations in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally very little different to the horrors of extermination camps." was your opinion.

That was my point. I can see the Thai education system being a bit backward and not covering history of the world basics but what sort of school system could have produced an adult like you that would come up with the above reasoning.

I was asking what school system in the world produced you.

I can understand the Thais and have stated that but I know of no country regardless of how twisted or retarded or evil that could have come up with the above quote and produced you.

I find it impossible to fathom the mentality of a nation that would allow the above quote to be taught in any school system and produce you.

Simply put, where the heck did you go to school that lead you to believe, "The annihilation by indiscriminate bombing of large civilian populations in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally very little different to the horrors of extermination camps?"

Edited October 16, 2011 by sbk
flame removed- do not do it again

[sbk]

We are going to drop this abusive commenting now. Its okay to disagree but this kind of flaming is NOT acceptable.

[StreetCowboy]

...

I completely understood your quote, "The annihilation by indiscriminate bombing of large civilian populations in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally very little different to the horrors of extermination camps." was your opinion.

That was my point. I can see the Thai education system being a bit backward and not covering history of the world basics but what sort of school system could have produced an adult like you that would come up with the above reasoning.

I was asking what school system in the world produced you.

I can understand the Thais and have stated that but I know of no country regardless of how twisted or retarded or evil that could have come up with the above quote and produced you.

I find it impossible to fathom the mentality of a nation that would allow the above quote to be taught in any school system and produce you.

Simply put, where the heck did you go to school that lead you to believe, "The annihilation by indiscriminate bombing of large civilian populations in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally very little different to the horrors of extermination camps?"

I suppose some of our opinions are not taught in school, but we form them all the same.

Rather than ridiculing the opinons of others, perhaps we could put forward an explanation of why the actions were different.

The genocide of jews by the Nazi government of Germany was an end in itself. Genocide is seen generally as a particularly wicked act, now.

The bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ostensibly an attempt to hasten the end of the war by intimidating the enemy into surrender, I believe. I have heard the view expressed that the second bomb was dropped with undue haste in order to test the technology, and that a more committed attempt at diplomacy at that stage might have avoided the need for a second bomb.

One can hold views on attacks against civilians, but neither side could claim substantial innocence in that regard with respect to aerial bombardment in that war. I sometimes struggle to differentiate those bombings from those of the IRA or the ongoing bombings against civilians and security forces alike in the Middle East. But then, I only refer to my moral compass when I have doubts about where I am going...

SC

I realise that this is off-topic, and we should be concentrating on the dressing up. The uniforms do look quite - raunchy...fashion-wise, I think they would have been just as smart, and made the point just as well, without the swastikas, but the Thais are very label-conscious. I don't think anyone could have mistaken those kids for genuine Louis Vitton Nazis, though. Furthermore, I doubt Thai nazis would not wear a swastika anyway - though it is possible. No doubt they would use some symbol that was more quintessentially Thai, and had not been adopted by any other power. British nazis generally wear a union jack, I believe, though the converse is not necessarily true. Personally, I think our members may have cause to be concerned by national socialist dendencies in Thailand, but that is not associated with kids wearing fancy dress. It is associated with forming boundaries of antipathy between Thais and foreigners.

Edited October 16, 2011 by sbk

[Nisa]

To Loaded and Nisa, my question is rather specific but it seems difficult to understand so I will repeat it.

Has anyone ever heard the quoted information in any school system on any level in any school in any country?

Your question was ignored because it clearly showed your inability to understand my original post. Your quote was my opinion. I am not sure how you managed to twist it to suggest it was used in schools. Never mind.

You clearly believe that the Western perspective of events is the only true one and this is the one presented to school children around the world. This is a very naive opinion. For example, Japanese school children have never even heard of the Nangking massacre. They don't know about the atrocities committed by Japanese troops. In much the same way, Western school children also receive a filtered version of historical events.

I completely understood your quote, "The annihilation by indiscriminate bombing of large civilian populations in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally very little different to the horrors of extermination camps." was your opinion.

That was my point. I can see the Thai education system being a bit backward and not covering history of the world basics but what sort of school system could have produced an adult like you that would come up with the above reasoning.

I was asking what school system in the world produced you.

I can understand the Thais and have stated that but I know of no country regardless of how twisted or retarded or evil that could have come up with the above quote and produced you.

I find it impossible to fathom the mentality of a nation that would allow the above quote to be taught in any school system and produce you.

Simply put, where the heck did you go to school that lead you to believe, "The annihilation by indiscriminate bombing of large civilian populations in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally very little different to the horrors of extermination camps?"

Why are you so unreasonably obsessed with putting a scale on which way is more morally acceptable to purposely kill civilians in war time?

[kerryk]

To Loaded and Nisa, my question is rather specific but it seems difficult to understand so I will repeat it.

Has anyone ever heard the quoted information in any school system on any level in any school in any country?

Your question was ignored because it clearly showed your inability to understand my original post. Your quote was my opinion. I am not sure how you managed to twist it to suggest it was used in schools. Never mind.

You clearly believe that the Western perspective of events is the only true one and this is the one presented to school children around the world. This is a very naive opinion. For example, Japanese school children have never even heard of the Nangking massacre. They don't know about the atrocities committed by Japanese troops. In much the same way, Western school children also receive a filtered version of historical events.

I completely understood your quote, "The annihilation by indiscriminate bombing of large civilian populations in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally very little different to the horrors of extermination camps." was your opinion.

That was my point. I can see the Thai education system being a bit backward and not covering history of the world basics but what sort of school system could have produced an adult like you that would come up with the above reasoning.

I was asking what school system in the world produced you.

I can understand the Thais and have stated that but I know of no country regardless of how twisted or retarded or evil that could have come up with the above quote and produced you.

I find it impossible to fathom the mentality of a nation that would allow the above quote to be taught in any school system and produce you.

Simply put, where the heck did you go to school that lead you to believe, "The annihilation by indiscriminate bombing of large civilian populations in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally very little different to the horrors of extermination camps?"

Why are you so unreasonably obsessed with putting a scale on which way is more morally acceptable to purposely kill civilians in war time?

I believe it is considered polite posting etiquette to answer the question posed before trying to re direct the discussion in another direction.

Why is my question so hard to answer?

[StreetCowboy]

...Why are you so unreasonably obsessed with putting a scale on which way is more morally acceptable to purposely kill civilians in war time?

I think that some people believe that in war time, we must do things that otherwise we might not, for self preservation, or to minimise the total loss.

In the interests of survival, sometimes we must value our own lives, those of our family, and our society, above those of our enemies.

On the other hand, in peace time, prior to war, perhaps we have a duty to care for those in our society we detest, regardless of our feelings towards them.

Sometimes we need to concentrate on the road ahead, and staying on it, rather than worrying about which direction each turn in that road momentarily takes us, relative to our moral compass

SC

Perhaps, by that same analogy, we should limit people's freedom to dress up. That decision was made in post-war Austria and Germany, and probably reduced the risk of recidivist behaviour. But perhaps now, we don't need to take that turning, we can maintain our civic society while maintaining the freedoms that we hold dear. The ban on the swastika in Austria and Germany was not out of reverence, compassion or remembrance, but to suppress political unrest and allow recovery and Germany's rehabilitation into Western society

[verywierd]

I don't think that the motivations of the perpetrators really matter much to civilians who are dying horribly in time of war.Wouldn't it be better to agree that deliberately killing large numbers of civilians as a method of making war should be condemned no matter what the justification. If any one justification is accepted as being valid, then all of them will be bound to be acceptable to somebody.The extermination of the Cathars was horrible.The extermination of the Native Americans was horrible.The killing of around 20 million people in the Taiping Rebellion was horrible.The massacre of a large portion of the Indian population by Muslim invaders was horrible.The bombing of Dresden was horrible.The German death camps were horrible.The nuclear bombing of two Japanese cities was horrible.The civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are horrible.In each case, the perpetrators felt that they were perfectly justified or entitled to do what they did.Do we really have to stand around arguing whose horror was more horrible?

[StreetCowboy]

I don't think that the motivations of the perpetrators really matter much to civilians who are dying horribly in time of war.Wouldn't it be better to agree that deliberately killing large numbers of civilians as a method of making war should be condemned no matter what the justification. If any one justification is accepted as being valid, then all of them will be bound to be acceptable to somebody.The extermination of the Cathars was horrible.The extermination of the Native Americans was horrible.The killing of around 20 million people in the Taiping Rebellion was horrible.The massacre of a large portion of the Indian population by Muslim invaders was horrible.The bombing of Dresden was horrible.The German death camps were horrible.The nuclear bombing of two Japanese cities was horrible.The civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are horrible.In each case, the perpetrators felt that they were perfectly justified or entitled to do what they did.Do we really have to stand around arguing whose horror was more horrible?

You really need to get a reference to fancy dress and children's parades into your posts, to avoid accusations of drifting off-topic.

Horror is in the eye of the beholder and the victim. What we are trying to distinguish is the culpability of the perpetrator.

Some would argue that actions in times of war which reduce your own risk, casualties to your own side, family or tribe are less reprehensible than peacetime genocide against your own citizens. The contrary opinion leads on to the muggers' right to sue the victim who defends himself.

Some would argue that in times of civil unrest, freedom of assembly, of speech, or dress, may be curtailed to avoid inciting violence, but in times of stability, we should be tolerant of others' opinion, ignorance and tactlessness.

SC

[kerryk]

...

I completely understood your quote, "The annihilation by indiscriminate bombing of large civilian populations in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally very little different to the horrors of extermination camps." was your opinion.

That was my point. I can see the Thai education system being a bit backward and not covering history of the world basics but what sort of school system could have produced an adult like you that would come up with the above reasoning.

I was asking what school system in the world produced you.

I can understand the Thais and have stated that but I know of no country regardless of how twisted or retarded or evil that could have come up with the above quote and produced you.

I find it impossible to fathom the mentality of a nation that would allow the above quote to be taught in any school system and produce you.

Simply put, where the heck did you go to school that lead you to believe, "The annihilation by indiscriminate bombing of large civilian populations in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally very little different to the horrors of extermination camps?"

I suppose some of our opinions are not taught in school, but we form them all the same.

Rather than ridiculing the opinons of others, perhaps we could put forward an explanation of why the actions were different.

The genocide of jews by the Nazi government of Germany was an end in itself. Genocide is seen generally as a particularly wicked act, now.

The bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ostensibly an attempt to hasten the end of the war by intimidating the enemy into surrender, I believe. I have heard the view expressed that the second bomb was dropped with undue haste in order to test the technology, and that a more committed attempt at diplomacy at that stage might have avoided the need for a second bomb.

One can hold views on attacks against civilians, but neither side could claim substantial innocence in that regard with respect to aerial bombardment in that war. I sometimes struggle to differentiate those bombings from those of the IRA or the ongoing bombings against civilians and security forces alike in the Middle East. But then, I only refer to my moral compass when I have doubts about where I am going...

SC

I realise that this is off-topic, and we should be concentrating on the dressing up. The uniforms do look quite - raunchy...fashion-wise, I think they would have been just as smart, and made the point just as well, without the swastikas, but the Thais are very label-conscious. I don't think anyone could have mistaken those kids for genuine Louis Vitton Nazis, though. Furthermore, I doubt Thai nazis would not wear a swastika anyway - though it is possible. No doubt they would use some symbol that was more quintessentially Thai, and had not been adopted by any other power. British nazis generally wear a union jack, I believe, though the converse is not necessarily true. Personally, I think our members may have cause to be concerned by national socialist dendencies in Thailand, but that is not associated with kids wearing fancy dress. It is associated with forming boundaries of antipathy between Thais and foreigners.

For me the debate of civilian causalities in war ended with Sherman's march to the sea. I discussed it in college for what seemed like years as my opinion was different from the professors in the history department. Although I must say I got A's on my papers for research and argument in spite of the fact they disagreed with me. In the end I came to agree with my teachers and the fact that Lincoln was justified in ordering Sherman to starve the Southern people to shorten the war.

War is war but the Holocaust had nothing to do with the outcome of the war. The opposite may have been the case. If the Germans had not been anti Jewish they would have gained many scientific advantages from Jews who fled from Germany.

To compare the two is apples and oranges and seems to me trying to justify genocide.

Edited October 16, 2011 by sbk

[StreetCowboy]

...

To compare the two is apples and oranges and seems to me trying to justify genocide.

There you go bringing religion into it again. Forget about what happened in Derry more than four hundred years ago!

I agree with you, though on the war in the Pacific and war in the South. (The only text book I have read which gives much consideration to that war is "The Ascent of Money" by Niall Ferguson, and it does not concentrate on the military aspects of the conflict.)

However, my moral compass is a new testament one, based on tolerance of one's neighbours, whether they be samaritan or jew, and rehabilitation rather than revenge.

If the war in the Pacific had dragged on while the Allies obliterated every island of Japan in order to conquer it, as they had to do with Iwo Jima, then Japan's defeat and eventual recovery would have been delayed by years, or even generations. We can only begin to recover when we accept defeat and admit surrender. And who amongst us is willing to admit defeat until he has ridden with the horsemen of terror, bewilderment, frustration and despair?

We should not regret the past, nor shut the door on it. We should see how our experience can help us and others, but we should not eternally relive our past miseries, and expect recompense for them. We should consider not what we should have done in the past, but rather what we should do now, in the present. Those who continue to fight the previous war will inevitably lose the next.

I think outrage is probably a bad thing. It seems to engender thoughtless response and emotional excess. Perhaps if the Thai students' Nazi dress-up day and caused consternation and introspective reflection we might have had a quite differnet and more constructive thread.

SC

[kerryk]

I don't think that the motivations of the perpetrators really matter much to civilians who are dying horribly in time of war.Wouldn't it be better to agree that deliberately killing large numbers of civilians as a method of making war should be condemned no matter what the justification. If any one justification is accepted as being valid, then all of them will be bound to be acceptable to somebody.The extermination of the Cathars was horrible.The extermination of the Native Americans was horrible.The killing of around 20 million people in the Taiping Rebellion was horrible.The massacre of a large portion of the Indian population by Muslim invaders was horrible.The bombing of Dresden was horrible.The German death camps were horrible.The nuclear bombing of two Japanese cities was horrible.The civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are horrible.In each case, the perpetrators felt that they were perfectly justified or entitled to do what they did.Do we really have to stand around arguing whose horror was more horrible?

The reality of war changed sometime in the 1700's for most conflicts. Instead of soldiers marching out on a field standing 50 meters apart and shooting at each other war became a contest to exterminate the enemies population. I guess this is news to a lot of people on Thai Visa but honest it did happen hundreds of years ago. The airplane made that killing easier. I can drop a bomb or poison crops or water it still has the same result. Biological warfare was a big topic during WWII and the Japanese had large facilities working on it. Most countries still have tons of poisons sitting in remote facilities and don't know what to do with them.

For all the people who want to turn the clock back to 1700 I agree it is a nice idea but it is never going to happen. War is a nasty business and anyone who has been in one will tell you half the people get killed by mistake anyway.

There were German generals in WW II like Rommel that still come off as being heroic and good soldiers but the Swastika has not come to represent Rommel. The Swastika has come to represent the Holocaust which had nothing to do with WW II in reality and only detracted from Germany's war effort.

[StreetCowboy]

...

...The Swastika has come to represent the Holocaust which had nothing to do with WW II in reality and only detracted from Germany's war effort.

The swastika and the German Nazi party have been vilified and painted as the worst villains of the 20th century, but the principles on which their monstrosity was founded are shared by many parties today, and some of those principles appear to be shared by many in this forum - most commonly expressed by fellow British members with respect to immigration, though I am sure shared by others of other nationalities as well.

If events such as the parade in question can give us the opportunity to examine our own views and opinions, as, perhaps, the students intended, then they are to be commended for that.

SC

[Loaded]

I completely understood your quote, "The annihilation by indiscriminate bombing of large civilian populations in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally very little different to the horrors of extermination camps." was your opinion.

That was my point. I can see the Thai education system being a bit backward and not covering history of the world basics but what sort of school system could have produced an adult like you that would come up with the above reasoning.

I was asking what school system in the world produced you.

I can understand the Thais and have stated that but I know of no country regardless of how twisted or retarded or evil that could have come up with the above quote and produced you.

I find it impossible to fathom the mentality of a nation that would allow the above quote to be taught in any school system and produce you.

Simply put, where the heck did you go to school that lead you to believe, "The annihilation by indiscriminate bombing of large civilian populations in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally very little different to the horrors of extermination camps?"

Clearly, to me, you are someone who doesn't tolerate opinions that are different to yours. There seems to be a Freudian connection between the 'nazi' parade of naive school children in Chiang Mai and your obsession with this thread. Whether it's the bombing and massacre of civilians in Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia, or the people who sanctioned extermination camps in WW2, the morality of the people responsible is no different imo. Of course, degrees of scale are different, but morality is very little different.

I have a feeling Kerry that you were US military.

[Gers1873]

I thought this thread would have climbed into a bunker and shot itself by now

[animatic]

I don't think that the motivations of the perpetrators really matter much to civilians who are dying horribly in time of war.Wouldn't it be better to agree that deliberately killing large numbers of civilians as a method of making war should be condemned no matter what the justification. If any one justification is accepted as being valid, then all of them will be bound to be acceptable to somebody.The extermination of the Cathars was horrible.The extermination of the Native Americans was horrible.The killing of around 20 million people in the Taiping Rebellion was horrible.The massacre of a large portion of the Indian population by Muslim invaders was horrible.The bombing of Dresden was horrible.The German death camps were horrible.The nuclear bombing of two Japanese cities was horrible.The civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are horrible.In each case, the perpetrators felt that they were perfectly justified or entitled to do what they did.Do we really have to stand around arguing whose horror was more horrible?

The reality of war changed sometime in the 1700's for most conflicts. Instead of soldiers marching out on a field standing 50 meters apart and shooting at each other war became a contest to exterminate the enemies population. I guess this is news to a lot of people on Thai Visa but honest it did happen hundreds of years ago. The airplane made that killing easier. I can drop a bomb or poison crops or water it still has the same result. Biological warfare was a big topic during WWII and the Japanese had large facilities working on it. Most countries still have tons of poisons sitting in remote facilities and don't know what to do with them.

For all the people who want to turn the clock back to 1700 I agree it is a nice idea but it is never going to happen. War is a nasty business and anyone who has been in one will tell you half the people get killed by mistake anyway.

There were German generals in WW II like Rommel that still come off as being heroic and good soldiers but the Swastika has not come to represent Rommel. The Swastika has come to represent the Holocaust which had nothing to do with WW II in reality and only detracted from Germany's war effort.

Goes back a lot farther than a few hundred years.

The civilian populations in and around most wars bore the brunt often more than the combatants. Back then the civilians were considered a part of the enemy support structure and thus fair game. Even going back to primitive village vs village battles, Winner kills or enslaves the men, takes the crops and women and goes home to await the next attack or need to purloin resources to support their societal unit.

The main point of this thread has been to not glorify one Armed Societal group, The Nazi's, because, they did not just try to take power and control natural resources, and did not just kill the male population, they went for enslavement in arbitrary and horrible manners. BUT, and a huge difference between most previous wars, they went after certain specific groups of human cultures and tried to exterminate them.

We haven't seen that since except for Rowanda, which went completely off the rails in tribale hatred, and Ex-Yugoslvai, and fortunately nothing of the same numbers, and those numbers in Yugoslavia were minimised by outrage at the comparisons with the Holocaust.

Outrage and condemnation of these glorifications of horrible groups by the ignorant serves the purpose of preventing us, as multiple cultures, of forgetting and letting things slide that slippery slope again.

Edited October 16, 2011 by animatic

[kerryk]

I completely understood your quote, "The annihilation by indiscriminate bombing of large civilian populations in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally very little different to the horrors of extermination camps." was your opinion.

That was my point. I can see the Thai education system being a bit backward and not covering history of the world basics but what sort of school system could have produced an adult like you that would come up with the above reasoning.

I was asking what school system in the world produced you.

I can understand the Thais and have stated that but I know of no country regardless of how twisted or retarded or evil that could have come up with the above quote and produced you.

I find it impossible to fathom the mentality of a nation that would allow the above quote to be taught in any school system and produce you.

Simply put, where the heck did you go to school that lead you to believe, "The annihilation by indiscriminate bombing of large civilian populations in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally very little different to the horrors of extermination camps?"

Clearly, to me, you are someone who doesn't tolerate opinions that are different to yours. There seems to be a Freudian connection between the 'nazi' parade of naive school children in Chiang Mai and your obsession with this thread. Whether it's the bombing and massacre of civilians in Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia, or the people who sanctioned extermination camps in WW2, the morality of the people responsible is no different imo. Of course, degrees of scale are different, but morality is very little different.

I have a feeling Kerry that you were US military.

I understand all that and have a very clear understanding of what your are saying. I also understand that you did not read the previous posts in this thread that explained the difference between war and the Holocaust. You have this idea in your head and cannot tolerate anyone who disagrees with it. So you attack me instead of answering the question I asked or debating the difference between war and the Holocaust.

I realize all these things.

I only asked a simple question. What education system produced you? What did you learn in school that allows you to think that war and the Holocaust are the same thing. Who taught you that?

I'll admit I took a lot of history in college. I took a lot of American history. I took a number of courses that dealt with the war between the States. I have toured every major battlefield of that war to get a better understanding of what happened. I know all about the American Civil war. I know that Lincoln finally got upset and told his generals to win the darn war and he didn't care how. So Sherman burned the crops and starved a lot of Southern men women and children in order to win the war.

If you don't want to go to war and think it is an unjust war you get out of the country. My grandfather migrated from Prussia to the US to avoid a war. A lot of Americans left America to get out of going to war in Vietnam because they thought it was not a just war.

England tried to starve the Irish and the Irish came to America. That is what you do. If you don't like it you leave.

If you don't leave you take your chances. My grandfather did not have any cash when he came to the US and most Irish didn't either but they both got out so don't give me the poor people thing.

I am a product of my experience which includes a number of wars and my education which includes a lot of history.

I only asked “what did you learn in school that allows you to make what I consider a very flawed and dangerous comparison.” “The annihilation by indiscriminate bombing of large civilian populations in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally very little different to the horrors of extermination camps?" Is that such a difficult question to answer?

Why is it important? Because you may be in a position to influence others and spread your flawed and dangerous comparison. If you look at the issue objectively you cannot logically come to the conclusion that you have come to.

If you learned nothing in school that allowed you to reach the conclusion, "The annihilation by indiscriminate bombing of large civilian populations in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally very little different to the horrors of extermination camps?" simply state that and we can all understand that something in your experience must be at fault and not a flawed education.

However I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe there is a country in the world that teaches, "The annihilation by indiscriminate bombing of large civilian populations in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally very little different to the horrors of extermination camps?"

[cdnvic]

I thought this thread would have climbed into a bunker and shot itself by now

It should have. It's gone far off topic.