Planet America

[Meadmaker]

You cut Hitler less slack than Henry Kissinger?

Yes.

In trying to think of why, here's what I came up with. Kissinger, and other Americans of his ilk, felt that whatever deaths they caused were a regrettable side effect of pursuing an important cause. ("Important" to them.) They might have had a cavalier attitude toward those who would die or suffer from their actions, but they didn't seek to kill.


Hitler, and most of the other conquerors, saw the people they killed as nuissances to be swept away. For Hitler, the deaths of the Poles was insignifican. Those people had something that Hitler wanted. i.e. Poland, "lebensraum"., and the deaths of the Jews were a positive boon. He did that part just for fun.

[arthwollipot]

Hitler, and most of the other conquerors, saw the people they killed as nuissances to be swept away. For Hitler, the deaths of the Poles was insignifican. Those people had something that Hitler wanted. i.e. Poland, "lebensraum"., and the deaths of the Jews were a positive boon. He did that part just for fun.

No, you said it yourself. He did it for lebensraum, and the betterment of the Aryan people, whom he believed were the superior race.

[President Bush]

You cut Hitler less slack than Henry Kissinger?

Yes.

In trying to think of why, here's what I came up with. Kissinger, and other Americans of his ilk, felt that whatever deaths they caused were a regrettable side effect of pursuing an important cause. ("Important" to them.) They might have had a cavalier attitude toward those who would die or suffer from their actions, but they didn't seek to kill.

Tell that to the people of Laos.

Hitler, and most of the other conquerors, saw the people they killed as nuissances to be swept away. For Hitler, the deaths of the Poles was insignifican. Those people had something that Hitler wanted. i.e. Poland, "lebensraum"., and the deaths of the Jews were a positive boon. He did that part just for fun.

You neglected to mention the most striking difference: Hitler´s side lost, Kissinger´s side didn´t.

[stanky]

looks like some folks would like to have another crack at the Nazi thing.
they're like rednecks with a strict fashion sense.
they'd be funnier without the guns.

[sparks]

Wouldn't we all?

[President Bush]

Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands.
-Anthony Bourdain

https://twitter.com/Bourdain/status/960 ... ambodia%2F

[Admin]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Meadmaker]

You neglected to mention the most striking difference: Hitler´s side lost, Kissinger´s side didn´t.

Last time I checked, Vietnam was a communist country. I think Kissinger's side lost, although the degree of defeat was not so bad as Hitler's. The Cambodians, Laotians and Vietnamese didn't have an opportunity to put him on trial.


One phenomenon that happens a lot with powerful countries is that they have a noble cause, but their execution in pursuing the noble cause is so bad that the people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries end up not appreciating the effort, because the "collateral damage" seems a bit worse than the problem they were trying to solve. In Kissinger's case, I think that fighting communism truly was a noble cause. I don't just mean that he believed it was a noble cause. I think it actually was a noble cause. Where it went wrong is that military, from the top generals to the 19 year old privates, tended to value the lives of the Asians less highly than those of Americans.

Sadly it's not something confined to American in the 1970s. I think there are examples from today's headlines that are similar.

[stanky]

Communism has been a handy boogie-man for the U.S.'s need to flex its military might. I doubt that most americans know what it means, but they surely know it's a very bad, evil thing that must be stopped. Even vague hints of it, as in social democracies, have been met with fear, as when Bernie Sanders was promoting a change towards the Scandinavian model of social welfare. That would lead to communism, we were told. Even universal health care would surely topple our fragile system of unadulterated capitalism...which is always framed as freeedom.

I doubt that Henry K. or any one else in power here, ever thought that our wars had anything to do with that supposed threat. We knew from the Korean war that it would be a losing strategy. We simply need to flex that military muscle to the world, and any cheesy excuse is adequate. After Vietnam, we've had many one-sided altercations that had no link to communism. Terrorism, for instance, was a fine new enemy. Iraq isn't communist. Hitler was certainly no commie. There is no idealism in our bombings du jour.

The failure of communism is used as a salve to soothe the analogous failure of capitalism. We tend to pat ourselves on the back, promoting a model that has no future, in lieu of formulating a reasonable hybridized approach.

Cruelty is a thing. Some people are drawn to it, even as kids. It's a condition in the brain, i think. Sociopaths can have a disturbing advantage over others. I think we're suffering from a sort of denial about this. We inadvertently reward liars and bullies.
We even elect them as presidents.

[President Bush]

You neglected to mention the most striking difference: Hitler´s side lost, Kissinger´s side didn´t.

Last time I checked, Vietnam was a communist country. I think Kissinger's side lost, although the degree of defeat was not so bad as Hitler's. The Cambodians, Laotians and Vietnamese didn't have an opportunity to put him on trial.

Last time I checked Laos was a very interesting place, great food, chill people, very rural mountainous countryside.

One phenomenon that happens a lot with powerful countries is that they have a noble cause, but their execution in pursuing the noble cause is so bad that the people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries end up not appreciating the effort, because the "collateral damage" seems a bit worse than the problem they were trying to solve. In Kissinger's case, I think that fighting communism truly was a noble cause. I don't just mean that he believed it was a noble cause. I think it actually was a noble cause. Where it went wrong is that military, from the top generals to the 19 year old privates, tended to value the lives of the Asians less highly than those of Americans.

Sadly it's not something confined to American in the 1970s. I think there are examples from today's headlines that are similar.

Laos and the state of Michigan are fairly similar in size.

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country ... n-usa/laos

During the Vietnam War US planes dropped over 270,000,000 bombs on Laos. Divide that by 83, the number of counties in Michigan.

Imagine three million, two hundred fifty three thousand, and twelve cluster bombs dropped on every county in your state over the course of 580,000 bombing missions.

Have a nice day.