Dan_Moore comments on What truths are actually taboo? - Less Wrong

5 Post author: sunflowers 16 April 2013 11:40PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (293)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: sunflowers 17 April 2013 05:38:27PM 2 points [-]

There were abuses by bankers and capitalists, many of whom were Jewish. There were "Jewish Bolsheviks." And there was resistance and terrorism. As for the war being a prerequisite for the Holocaust, see the intentionalist vs. functionalist debate.

The avoidability of the war is a more subtle question. Along with Orwell, I think war was inevitable and obvious by 1936, at least if we consider the conquest by Germany of continental Europe possibly excepting France, Switzerland, Belgium, and other fascist powers unacceptable. Even then, the war might have been confined. I see little historical necessity for e.g. the alliance of Japan and Germany or the attack on Pearl Harbor. At what date would you agree the war was avoidable? 1918? 1930? If you'd like me to find particular historians - I'm not including Pat Buchanan - I will do that. But there's a pretty wide range of opinion here. (Aside: I'd like to find resources that framed the question primarily in terms of German-Soviet relations instead of Anglo-Polish ones.)

Comment author: Dan_Moore 18 April 2013 06:55:06PM 3 points [-]

I'm also having trouble connecting the dots between the functionalist position that the Holocaust was caused by mid-level Nazi bureaucrats and the assertion that the Holocaust would not have happened were it not for the war.

Comment author: sunflowers 23 April 2013 04:55:38PM -1 points [-]

It's not just a "mid-level vs. top-level" split, but a question of when something like the Holocaust was formulated or became likely to happen. "Hitler planned it all along" sets a much earlier date than "mid-level bureaucrats were competing for Nazi brownies during the War."