The biggest mistake in human history.

[InkL0sed]

Not limiting the whole world to 1 child per family.

We are a plague of locusts consuming the planet.

But more people means more hot women!

[cmckinney]

Dropping that bomb on Hiroshima. One day now, one day.....


My runner ups: Electing Bush president. Starting the Iraq war. Bombing Pearl Harbor (for the Japanese at least).

Oh yes...because the Iraq war is so much worse then oh i dunno. The Holocaust?

The Holocaust was not a mistake -- mistakes are done by accident.

You say that we invaded Iraq on "accident?" you say we elected bush on "accident"? you say we dropped the bomb on "accident"? you say the japanese bombed pearl harbor on "accident"?

[sfhbballnut]

I think most people are thinking way too small and modern for the topic to be biggest mistake in human history, we've done much worse than elect Bush, and the atom bomb was a logical choice at the time

[InkL0sed]

You say that we invaded Iraq on "accident?" you say we elected bush on "accident"? you say we dropped the bomb on "accident"? you say the japanese bombed pearl harbor on "accident"?

No, but the results of all the things you just listed had unintended consequences, hence the accident bit. The Nazis pretty much did what they intended to do with the Holocaust...

[Napoleon Ier]

No wait: I have it:

BANNING NORSE.

Eh? Eh? ...eh?

[suggs]

No wait: I have it:

BANNING NORSE.

Eh? Eh? ...eh?

...and we have a winner, by a K.O.

[PLAYER57832]

Dropping that bomb on Hiroshima. One day now, one day.....


My runner ups: Electing Bush president. Starting the Iraq war. Bombing Pearl Harbor (for the Japanese at least).

Oh yes...because the Iraq war is so much worse then oh i dunno. The Holocaust?

The Holocaust was not a mistake -- mistakes are done by accident.

InkL0sed, you need to review your dictionary (and NOT Wikipeadia).

A mistake is something you did that you regret. Generally they are things we intended to do that did not necessarily end up with the results we intended.

An accident is just that ... an accident.

In children, they often cooincide because, say your mom might say "don't run" .. you do, and knock over an expensive vase. You certainly intentionally ran, but also did not intend to knock over the vase. So, in a snese, it was a mistake and an accident.

[InkL0sed]

What is up with people and Wikipedia these days? Every time someone disagrees with me, it seems like they tell me to stop reading Wikipedia, as if they knew that was my primary resource.

I know full well what a mistake is, and what an accident is, thank you very much.

I still say the Holocaust was not a mistake. I don't believe any Nazis truly regretted the Holocaust -- probably the only thing they regretted was invading Russia (which, by the way, is always a HUGE mistake). The Nazis knew exactly what they were doing, and it happened exactly as they intended (I'm talking about the Holocaust alone, not the actual war obviously). And since they were the ones who actually committed the act, I don't see how it could possibly be anybody else's mistake.

[PLAYER57832]

What is up with people and Wikipedia these days? Every time someone disagrees with me, it seems like they tell me to stop reading Wikipedia, as if they knew that was my primary resource.

I know full well what a mistake is, and what an accident is, thank you very much.

.

Except .....

The Holocaust was not a mistake -- mistakes are done by accident.

Apparently you don't. Mistakes are NOT things "done by accident' solely.

If you don't want to be corrected, check your definitions first.
And if we keep referring to Wikipeadia, its because so often folks citing wrong definitions and such use it as their reference.

[Napoleon Ier]

I think that it is hard to name anything 'the biggest mistake in human history', because we don't know how things would have turned out if they hadn't occurred. Treaty of Versaille - ultimately meant WW2 BUT what bigger and worse wars may have occured if WW2 hadn't? At least the Allies won WW2, if it had been a different War and the 'Good' side had lost then the world could be very different.

I don't think that I would change anything in History right now because the world is mostly a good place to live in and in the places where it isn't lots of people are trying to help. Also, if you start changing History then you don't know what worse things may happen.

Versailles didn't mean World War II...most historians would agree that although it did exarcerbate Germany's situation, the Nazis would have been able to come to power in most other post-WWI settlement cases.

[suggs]

Yeah, Nap is bang on it. Anyway, no way can Versailles be even in the top ten "biggest mistakes of human history". Theres even a decent case for arguing the peace terms were too lenient on Germany. Certainly they were barely enforced - and it didn't cause Germany's economic woes of the 20s.
Von Papen's arrogance in assuming he could control Hitler as Chancellor in Jan 1933 IS, however,a big contender...because...well...he couldn't...and some bad shit went down because of it.

I wonder if Nap would agree that the creation of Germany itself, back in 1870, was the biggest mistake? (And before I am accused of racsim or "anti-German, one of the most respected, and brilliant historians , A.J. P. Taylor, came very close to maintaning this position SO BOO SUCKS )

[jonesthecurl]

Yeah, Nap is bang on it. Anyway, no way can Versailles be even in the top ten "biggest mistakes of human history". Theres even a decent case for arguing the peace terms were too lenient on Germany. Certainly they were barely enforced - and it didn't cause Germany's economic woes of the 20s.
Von Papen's arrogance in assuming he could control Hitler as Chancellor in Jan 1933 IS, however,a big contender...because...well...he couldn't...and some bad shit went down because of it.

I wonder if Nap would agree that the creation of Germany itself, back in 1870, was the biggest mistake? (And before I am accused of racsim or "anti-German, one of the most respected, and brilliant historians , A.J. P. Taylor, came very close to maintaning this position SO BOO SUCKS )

I love his argument that WWI was caused by railway timetables. When I saw him baldly state that, I thought "???". But on seeing the expansion of the argument I had to say he had a hugely valid point.
To simplify: each nation's mobilisation plans in the case of war were so inflexible that once anyone perceived a threat, all the troops and arms would be moved in a pre-conceived pattern, and increase the threat to the neighbour, and so forth.

[Snorri1234]

Apparently you don't. Mistakes are NOT things "done by accident' solely.

True, but it does involve regret. Something I can't imagine the Nazis having.

[suggs]

Yeah, it was a cool argument. But Taylor was wrong on that one. TBH, Taylor was wrong on pretty much everything, but the way the guy writes, the way he makes history INTERESTING (no mean feat!) - well, shucks, I guess I have a bit of a soft spot for the ol' bastard.

While we're on it, the problem with Taylors "War By Timetable" argument is that it, while it may describe quite nicely the reason the WW1 got off to such a bloody start in record time, it doesnt really explain why WW1 happened.
You have to look at Taylor's agenda for writing it. He was reacting against Marxist and Annales, and Liberal Socio-Economic hostorians, who had pushed back the causes of WW1 to 1870, and even further.
Taylor wanted to say: "Hey, stop over complicating history. Look at what happened. Look at what REALLY happened at the TIME of the event". So Taylor's analysis of the causes of WW1 went back in time to about...1 day before the war, when the trains started shipping the German troops out.
And yeah, once that happened, it was difficult to stop.

But ironically, Taylor falls into the trap he hates most, that of "historical inevitability". He makes it sound like WW1 really had to happen, was always going to happen, and nothing could stop it.
But even if you go back one month before the war, to the "July crisis", you can see plenty of opportunities for the various actors in the drama to pit an end to it.
Human beings making decisions, and mistakes -only one of these decisions needed to be changed, and WW1 need never have happened.

Still, A. J.P Taylor -a fucking legend.

[suggs]

I guess shooting the poor ol' Ostrich was a biggy.

[PLAYER57832]

Apparently you don't. Mistakes are NOT things "done by accident' solely.

True, but it does involve regret. Something I can't imagine the Nazis having.

The regret is from humanity as a whole. Of course most of the individuals involved are conveniently dead, but I doubt we would ever see Hitler being regretful.

A lot of former nazis, though, (not all by any means) have reformed. You have to remember that not everyone was actually told of "the final solution". And, certainly we can say they "should" have been able to see the evidence in most cases, sometimes that was not true. Also, people have amazing powers of self-delusion when it serves their interests. Farm folk could have ashes pouring down on them and convince themselves, in truth, that what was happening wasn't really. Even the Jews themselves were astounded.. at least at first. It is much easier to see everything from the distance of time ... even some of the old SS do regret what they did back then. (not that regret makes it OK or better in any way)

As an aside, the current Nazis are another breed. They generally claim the Haulocaust never happened. They also tend to be more the independent survivalist types and conveniently forget that Nazi Germany was a planned and controlled economy, nothing to do with the free market or any kind of freedom.

[suggs]

Ah, but Player, see Daniel Goldhagen's (contraversial but scholarly) book, "Hitler's Willing Executioners".

basically he suggests the German people (or the vast majority of them) were all too HAPPY to send the Jews to the camps, or as you suggest, at best turn a blind eye to the Holocaust.
The reason why it was so controversial is that we like to pretend that the Holocaust was an abberation, and that the Germans are just like us really, and they hated what Hitler made them do, but went along with it through fear etc
As his title suggest, Goldhagen paints a more worrying picture of the Germans, as a RACE, being all too keen on their own superiority.
Sounds dodgy, i know, but its a great book - thought provoking.

I've just realised there are some interesting parallels with Goldings "Lord of the Flies" here.- inherent savagery and cruelty of man to his fellow man etc

[Napoleon Ier]

Ah, but Player, see Daniel Goldhagen's (contraversial but scholarly) book, "Hitler's Willing Executioners".

basically he suggests the German people (or the vast majority of them) were all too HAPPY to send the Jews to the camps, or as you suggest, at best turn a blind eye to the Holocaust.
The reason why it was so controversial is that we like to pretend that the Holocaust was an abberation, and that the Germans are just like us really, and they hated what Hitler made them do, but went along with it through fear etc
As his title suggest, Goldhagen paints a more worrying picture of the Germans, as a RACE, being all too keen on their own superiority.
Sounds dodgy, i know, but its a great book - thought provoking.

I've just realised there are some interesting parallels with Goldings "Lord of the Flies" here.- inherent savagery and cruelty of man to his fellow man etc

Gulp. Lord of the Flies lit. exam tomorrow.

Sorry, carry on.

[InkL0sed]

Ah, but Player, see Daniel Goldhagen's (contraversial but scholarly) book, "Hitler's Willing Executioners".

basically he suggests the German people (or the vast majority of them) were all too HAPPY to send the Jews to the camps, or as you suggest, at best turn a blind eye to the Holocaust.
The reason why it was so controversial is that we like to pretend that the Holocaust was an abberation, and that the Germans are just like us really, and they hated what Hitler made them do, but went along with it through fear etc
As his title suggest, Goldhagen paints a more worrying picture of the Germans, as a RACE, being all too keen on their own superiority.
Sounds dodgy, i know, but its a great book - thought provoking.

I've just realised there are some interesting parallels with Goldings "Lord of the Flies" here.- inherent savagery and cruelty of man to his fellow man etc

Well, Germans were given a choice of fighting the war or volunteering at the concentration camps. They very often chose the latter. So while it isn't as bad as it might seem, it is still, as you say, worrisome.

[Snorri1234]

it doesnt really explain why WW1 happened.

Because people think war is a splendid idea.
It happened like any other war happens: They thought it was a rather good idea and those who didn't think that way were dismissed as liberal pussies.

Every new generation has to find out for it's own how horrible war is.

[PLAYER57832]

Ah, but Player, see Daniel Goldhagen's (contraversial but scholarly) book, "Hitler's Willing Executioners".

basically he suggests the German people (or the vast majority of them) were all too HAPPY to send the Jews to the camps, or as you suggest, at best turn a blind eye to the Holocaust.
The reason why it was so controversial is that we like to pretend that the Holocaust was an abberation, and that the Germans are just like us really, and they hated what Hitler made them do, but went along with it through fear etc
As his title suggest, Goldhagen paints a more worrying picture of the Germans, as a RACE, being all too keen on their own superiority.
Sounds dodgy, i know, but its a great book - thought provoking.

I've just realised there are some interesting parallels with Goldings "Lord of the Flies" here.- inherent savagery and cruelty of man to his fellow man etc

Actually, I believe the reason the Holocaust hits us so deeply is because we know how easily it could have been us. That is, most of us would like to believe that we would be acting the rescuer, not the conciliators, but we cannot really know. And, there are other events in our history that show us this.

We practice self-delusion also.

[Snorri1234]

The regret is from humanity as a whole. Of course most of the individuals involved are conveniently dead, but I doubt we would ever see Hitler being regretful.

But....isn't it only when the perpetrator regrets it as a mistake that it is actually a mistake?

A lot of former nazis, though, (not all by any means) have reformed. You have to remember that not everyone was actually told of "the final solution". And, certainly we can say they "should" have been able to see the evidence in most cases, sometimes that was not true. Also, people have amazing powers of self-delusion when it serves their interests. Farm folk could have ashes pouring down on them and convince themselves, in truth, that what was happening wasn't really. Even the Jews themselves were astounded.. at least at first. It is much easier to see everything from the distance of time ... even some of the old SS do regret what they did back then. (not that regret makes it OK or better in any way)

I'd say the probable reaction of the ones doing it was: 'we were just following orders'. Something which has been said by a rather large portion of people who committed heinous acts.

It's a different emotion from regret I think. It's also why people who, if you meet them at a different time like in a bar would be nice and friendly and you couldn't imagine them commiting fucked up stuff, are capable of that same stuff. It's cowardice and the ability of people to soothe themself into thinking it's someone else's problem.

As an aside, the current Nazis are another breed. They generally claim the Haulocaust never happened. They also tend to be more the independent survivalist types and conveniently forget that Nazi Germany was a planned and controlled economy, nothing to do with the free market or any kind of freedom.

Different nazis then. The ones I'm talking about claim the holocaust was a good thing. Why would they deny something which would've been considered a succes if the nazis didn't lose the war?

[jonesthecurl]

Apparently you don't. Mistakes are NOT things "done by accident' solely.

True, but it does involve regret. Something I can't imagine the Nazis having.

my Uncle Peter was a Nazi soldier.

He was captured and became a POW. They were given work on farms, and there he met Aunt Babs, presumably working as a Land Girl. After the war they were married. He carried on working as a farm hand, (they both did) and eventually had his own orchard. He died just a few years ago. He was a nice guy.
I don't have a point to make, I just thought it might interest people.
I don't think he had any personal dislike for Jews, except to the extent that the Nazi propaganda made it inevitable. I'm pretty sure he had no idea what the concentration camps were about.

[Snorri1234]

Actually, I believe the reason the Holocaust hits us so deeply is because we know how easily it could have been us. That is, most of us would like to believe that we would be acting the rescuer, not the conciliators, but we cannot really know. And, there are other events in our history that show us this.

Word. I am always a little worried about people who claim they would certainly have been on the good side in the war. It's not like I think I would not be, it's just that I am in no way certain about it. Complying with it would be so much easier and why risk your life when you have a life featuring all the little worries any life has. I get the feeling I would be much busier with studying or working and love and all that then fighting against the oppressors.

[PLAYER57832]

The regret is from humanity as a whole. Of course most of the individuals involved are conveniently dead, but I doubt we would ever see Hitler being regretful.

But....isn't it only when the perpetrator regrets it as a mistake that it is actually a mistake?{/quote]

Individually, for that person, yes. They will only consider it a mistake if they regret.

For the rest of us ... we only have to regret the consequences. WE can see it as a mistake even if the person who did it doesn't.

A lot of former nazis, though, (not all by any means) have reformed. You have to remember that not everyone was actually told of "the final solution". And, certainly we can say they "should" have been able to see the evidence in most cases, sometimes that was not true. Also, people have amazing powers of self-delusion when it serves their interests. Farm folk could have ashes pouring down on them and convince themselves, in truth, that what was happening wasn't really. Even the Jews themselves were astounded.. at least at first. It is much easier to see everything from the distance of time ... even some of the old SS do regret what they did back then. (not that regret makes it OK or better in any way)

I'd say the probable reaction of the ones doing it was: 'we were just following orders'. Something which has been said by a rather large portion of people who committed heinous acts.

It's a different emotion from regret I think. It's also why people who, if you meet them at a different time like in a bar would be nice and friendly and you couldn't imagine them commiting fucked up stuff, are capable of that same stuff. It's cowardice and the ability of people to soothe themself into thinking it's someone else's problem.

For many, you are absolutely correct. I just point out that some truly were sorry, truly did have a "change of heart". I make no claim that it was a majority or anything like that

As an aside, the current Nazis are another breed. They generally claim the Haulocaust never happened. They also tend to be more the independent survivalist types and conveniently forget that Nazi Germany was a planned and controlled economy, nothing to do with the free market or any kind of freedom.

Different nazis then. The ones I'm talking about claim the holocaust was a good thing. Why would they deny something which would've been considered a succes if the nazis didn't lose the war

I am referring to the American Nazis party.