Third Reich at War

[FLiPSiDE]

I think it is silly to compare terrible things one culture did vs another. However, I do think that we have to remember that History is very subjective. It is undeniable that in the US we skim over the atrocities committed against the Native Americans (or bad things we've done to people). If you want to learn more about the way we treated Native Americans (you will have to dig deep as this is not a popular subject or one anyone in the US likes to talk about). Check out the documentary: The Canary Effect and then come back and we can discuss it (I know nobody actually will but it is worth a suggestion). The documentary isn't a bunch of propaganda either, it is well done using interviews with US University history professors, ex US Senators, quotes from Andrew Jackson, and various bits of US legislation, etc. It won some documentary awards and can be bought at Amazon.com.

Here is just a tid-bit they touch on about California that I found utterly disgusting and particularly heinous :

In his January 1851 message to the California legislature, California Governor Peter H. Burnett promised "a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race becomes extinct." Newspapers cheered on the campaign. In 1853 the Yreka Herald called on the government to provide aid to "enable the citizens of the north to carry on a war of extermination until the last redskin of these tribes has been killed. Extermination is no longer a question of time--the time has arrived, the work has commenced and let the first man who says treaty or peace be regarded as a traitor." Other newspapers voiced similar sentiments.
Towns offered bounty hunters cash for every Indian head or scalp they obtained. Rewards ranged from $5 for every severed head in Shasta City in 1855 to 25 cents for a scalp in Honey Lake in 1863. One resident of Shasta City wrote about how he remembers seeing men bringing mules to town, each laden with eight to twelve Indian heads. Other regions passed laws that called for collective punishment for the whole village for crimes committed by Indians, up to the destruction of the entire village and all of its inhabitants. These policies led to the destruction of as many as 150 Native communities.
In both 1851 and 1852 California paid out $1 million--revenue from the gold fields--to militias that hunted down and slaughtered Indians. In 1857, the state issued $400,000 in bonds to pay for anti-Indian militias.

[UnknownSoldier]

Subjective, indeed FLiPSiDE.
You might do well to discover why people hated them so much.

Just a few indian massacres out of 100's to google:

* Jamestown Massacre - 350 men, woman & children killed throughout the Virginia colony
* Lachine massacre - 1,500 Mohawks slaughtered 100 settlers
* Schenectady Massacre - 60 killed, including woman & children
* Deerfield Massacre - 60 killed including woman & children, dozens more kidnapped, most never seen again
* Enoch Brown School Massacre - 4 indians killed a schoolmaster, 10 pupils and a pregnant woman. Two pupils were scalped but survived.

The list goes on an on, 1,000's were slaughtered in brutal fashion, no mercy was shown on either side.
And you wonder why they were hunting heads ?
Think you might go off the deep end as well if someone raped, scalped & murdered your daughters ?

[FLiPSiDE]

@UnknownSoldier (who I'm guessing has a real account on here that he's not using): Those massacres you mention pale in comparison. So you are saying that everyone who was selling scalps and heads of Native American people were those families members who had been personally wronged in Native American aggression? I doubt that very much (just the numbers alone show that logic completely flawed). Did some Native Americans fight back in brutal manner. Sure, does that give us a license for Genocide, nope. Lets look at it like this. Didn't some Arab peoples cause us (USA) harm on 9/11 and still to this day? So by your logic it is ok if we completely massacre all Arab people in the Middle East (and elsewhere I guess)? Right? Destroy all of a people for the actions of a few.. That logic falls right into the skewed justification for every major Genocide in history (and proves my point nicely)..

You listed a total of under 2000 people wronged there (one as a total from across the entire Virginia colony). That's digging pretty deep for justification, if you ask me. Also you didn't note the tribes responsible, as we know the Native Americans were not one cohesive national entity. So a wrong by a tribe in Virginia doesn't justify a massacre in California...

[UnknownSoldier]

FLiPSiDE [who I'm guessing 300 posts in 2 years doesn't exactly make him an expert in any military collecting field], I have no desire at all to feed your apparent craving for off topic bickering.
You and other weeping hearts have derailed this topic into mush, I will no longer counter your 1 sided PC pandering with accurate perspective.
You want to rant on about how evil the builders of the USA were and how innocent & victimized the "completely massacred" indians were, have at it, I could not possibly care any less about your historic spin.
You are entitled to your views, I am entitled to mine, lets not pollute this interest specific topic & forum with off topic drivel & childish theatrics [ie "completely massacre" "genocide" ect ect]

Thats an old "debating" trick, taking half truths, exaggerations, urban myths and outright lies, blandly presenting them as undisputed fact, and using them as a basis for all your points.

[FLiPSiDE]

FLiPSiDE [who I'm guessing 300 posts in 2 years doesn't exactly make him an expert in any military collecting field], I have no desire at all to feed your apparent craving for off topic bickering.
You and other weeping hearts have derailed this topic into mush, I will no longer counter your 1 sided PC pandering with accurate perspective.
You want to rant on about how evil the builders of the USA were and how innocent & victimized the "completely massacred" indians were, have at it, I could not possibly care any less about your historic spin.
You are entitled to your views, I am entitled to mine, lets not pollute this interest specific topic & forum with off topic drivel & childish theatrics [ie "completely massacre" "genocide" ect ect]

Thats an old "debating" trick, taking half truths, exaggerations, urban myths and outright lies, blandly presenting them as undisputed fact, and using them as a basis for all your points.

Sounds good to me. Although I'm not angry concerning the founding of the US at all, I love my Country. I just think it's important to look at ourselves just as critically as we look at others (just like with Slavery and other painful topics in our history - glossing over them doesn't do us any justice). As for your comments that my replies are PC, sadly I think actually it's the other way around... Also trust me I'm not a "bleeding heart" at all (my family and friends would think that is very funny that someone called me that).

As for my 300 posts and my knowledge on military collecting (not sure what that has to do with anything). This forum section is for discussing books/media (which is what we're doing). Maybe I missed that point as it would make sense if we were in the TR Daggers thread or something like that?

[UnknownSoldier]

As for my 300 posts and my knowledge on military collecting (not sure what that has to do with anything).

I thought it would be glaringly obvious that was a not so subtle rejoinder to your insinuation that I am using a sock puppet account.
If I did, what would that have to do with anything ?
You can sling it out but can't seem to take very much, and I'd suggest that you think twice about making unfounded accusations against other forum members in the future, just because you want to make things a bit personal.
You sound like you think you are on a high horse, I don't recognize you as such, so if you want to deal from ground level ,,, Fine with me, so long as its on topic.

You want to debate indians, name the time and place, other than here.

[FLiPSiDE]

Ah I see. I wasn't trying to get personal at all. I don't think I'm on a high horse at all (I think you mis interpreted my comment). I just from the moment I started reading your posts in this thread, got the feeling you are probably really a respected (or at least well known) member on WAF but perhaps you don't want to voice opinions on certain matters with your main account for fear of hurting that reputation (or some other reason)? Nothing high horse or insulting about that.. Just an observation (and I very well could be wrong about that - it wasn't meant to say you aren't knowledgeable in military history - as I don't think you can equate historical knowledge with a post count on this forum - perhaps just an interest).

I really don't think there is anything left for us to debate here or anywhere else. I was merely mentioning that many of us in the US are not aware of the extent to which Native Americans were mis-treated (to put it very lightly). Your counter opinion is that the Native Americans returned those mis-treatments (again to put it very lightly). So I think that about covers it?

[UnknownSoldier]

If you say so, chief.
Feel free to speculate your suspicions until your heart is content.
You seem the type who likes the last word, so your next will be the last so far as I'm concerned.

[Curt Steinbach]

Ah I see. I wasn't trying to get personal at all. I don't think I'm on a high horse at all (I think you mis interpreted my comment). I just from the moment I started reading your posts in this thread, got the feeling you are probably really a respected (or at least well known) member on WAF but perhaps you don't want to voice opinions on certain matters with your main account for fear of hurting that reputation (or some other reason)? Nothing high horse or insulting about that.. Just an observation (and I very well could be wrong about that - it wasn't meant to say you aren't knowledgeable in military history - as I don't think you can equate historical knowledge with a post count on this forum - perhaps just an interest).

I really don't think there is anything left for us to debate here or anywhere else. I was merely mentioning that many of us in the US are not aware of the extent to which Native Americans were mis-treated (to put it very lightly). Your counter opinion is that the Native Americans returned those mis-treatments (again to put it very lightly). So I think that about covers it?

Well said FLiPSiDE - this is a forum for sharing views but some seem to be less open-minded than others. Certainly this thread deviated long ago and while I should restrain myself from replying to "UnknownSoldier" I can't help myself. To quote the prophet on all that is righteous "Thats an old "debating" trick, taking half truths, exaggerations, urban myths and outright lies, blandly presenting them as undisputed fact, and using them as a basis for all your points."...maybe you should take that to heart yourself.

[kale010]

I hope the discussion is finally gonna end. But I am definitely gonna read third reich at war.

[Jesse Rocco]

a good read and reminder

'

I just started this book and it's excellent so far. I did a search on the forum and hoped to find what others think about the book itself.

My two cents : It lays out the big picture of the Reich's ideology and plans in a way that holds interest. It often references diary excerpts from those on both sides of the fence as they were experiencing things on a daily level and then ties quotes with the larger historical sequences. I like this alot and felt it makes the book more real and breaks any monotomy. Going over Poland in 1939, the book goes into both the German and Russian policies; how similar they were and how they effected the Poles in almost equally negative ways.

The book has already had me personally questioning a life long interest in Germany during World War Two and a collection that I've built up through the years. Overall it reveals to me I think the human condition and what anyone might possibly be capable of under different circumstances and times. In the beginning it actually does reference briefly other land grabs and population decimations by the U.S. and Australia. But it keeps the focus and discusses what the title states. There are two other books by Evans that talk about the years prior to 1939, this is actually one in a series. I'm only trying to digest this one now and see it as being a condensed reminder of what was one nation's agenda.

Hope to hear other's thoughts on this book, thanks in advance.

(Worth mentioning in this thread : Another book that I'm coincidentally in the middle of now; "Empire of the Summer Moon" by S.C. Gwynne. It goes over the U.S.'s expansion into the West and specifically how the Comanche Indians rose to be a real force to be reconded with by the Spanish, Mexicans and U.S. It takes no sides I think and boils down the order of the day for the Comanche's and Texas Rangers, f' ing each other up as much as possible in order to protect each's own interests).


.