WW2 politics, and leading up to the War and beyond...

[Kishkumen]

I think the right word for me to use here is ''Lol'. You are proposing to conduct a discussion about the meaning of an ancient Chinese text in terms of the distinction between the English words 'wisdom' and 'true knowledge' as used in two different translations? My apologies in advance if you have in fact looked at the original text, but I suspect you have not.

So ceeboo knows Classical Chinese! Wow! Impressive.

[Markk]

Cakes: First, I think that this post by Morley is what compelled you to talk about ‘temporary solutions’:

No, this is basically what started it....

Morley: You know, from all the history you’ve read, that the Nazis had the extermination planned from the beginning. Cooper is suggesting otherwise.

Edited typo.

I responded with....

Mark: No he didn't; he is saying they weren't prepared to implement mass murder... if I am wrong, and he isn't sure, then The Holocaust Encyclopedia, a very respected source, agrees it is not clear. Are these folks Neo-Nazis?

Establishment of Ghettos
The Germans began World War II by invading Poland in September 1939. The Nazi leaders then shifted priorities in anti-Jewish policy from expulsion from German-controlled territory to concentration of European Jewish populations in locations suited to future permanent removal. It is not clear that the Nazi leaders were already envisioning mass murder as their "solution" to their so-called Jewish problem.

As a temporary measure, while the top leadership considered long-term options, German authorities established ghettos in the Generalgouvernement (that part of German-occupied Poland not directly annexed to Germany, attached to German East Prussia or incorporated into the German-occupied Soviet Union) and in the District Wartheland, commonly called the Warthegau (an area of western Poland directly annexed to the German Reich). From late 1939, German SS and police authorities deported Polish, German, Austrian, and Czech Jews to these ghettos. (Bold mine;by Markk » Sun Jun 22, 2025 2:38 pm )

It was and always been in regard to the context of "ghettos."

Morley then conceded: You’re right to correct me. The Nazi plans for dealing with the Jews evolved over time, becoming more and more radicalized as the war progressed. However, none of their plans had anything to do with being humane, as Cooper suggested. Gassing someone is not a humane solution to the problem of shooting them. (Bold mine)

The temporary measure or solution, was about the Ghettos....

Gad even conceded he knew this....

Gad: I understand very well that WW2 didn't start out with Hitler masterminding a Rube-Goldberg scenic route for the explicit purpose of gassing millions of Jewish people.

As did Physics guy...

PG: Naturally the Nazis took some time to get their mass murder program running efficiently. Neither Cooper nor anyone else gets any credit for pointing this out, since no one has ever supposed otherwise.

Well, you did....you supposed otherwise and said you you had issues with a "temporary solution."

Mark, answering your question your keep asking: 1. I gave a response to question one of my post that you obviously missed. It was a temporary solution while the leadership, I guess primarily Himmler, Heydrich, and Hitler, figured out their options. If you watched the podcast or read the posts, according to Cooper, which I agree, Germany was not prepared for handling millions of Jews, POWs, and political prisoners collectively. This seems totally plausible to me, and I plan to read more about this. It is something I never thought much about before I heard his take on it.

Your wrote in response:

Cakes: A ‘temporary solution’?

Here are some problems with this opinion, as I see it:

- Killing people is not a temporary solution. It’s pretty permanent.
- The Nazis were already using mobile gas vans and killing centers as early as 1939.
- Aktion Reinhard - the plan offering a ‘Final Solution’ - was created in 1941. This was not referred to as a ‘final solution’ because Nazis were putting people in camps for holiday, right?
- Many trainloads of prisoners were offloaded directly into gassing rooms upon arrival. There was no time to even consider needing to feed them.

Why did the Nazis seize these so-called ‘political prisoners’ in the first place? Why do you think that the Nazis beat, starved and shot all of these political prisoners, then rounded up the remainder that had somehow managed to survive and shipped them off to concentration camps? Do you believe that there was ever a plan in place to release these political prisoners at some point, down the road?

Cooper’s narrative seems contrived, and insults the millions of people who died at the hands of a process that was designed from the start to kill them. Why would you give credence to a claim that gassing them was some kind of ‘temporary’ measure undertaken because the Germans didn’t figure out a way to house and feed them? This is certainly odd phrasing

.

You missed the context of the temporary solution was and is in the context of the Ghettos.

[ceeboo]

That's not what Confucius said.

"To know what you know and what you do not know, that is true knowledge" is what he has been credited with saying. If you need me to explain the significant difference between knowledge and wisdom, just ask and I will expend the time to explain it to you.


Wondering if you will have enough modesty to realize, as things stand, that you don't know enough about Confucius to have an opinion worthy of serious attention.

I think the right word for me to use here is ''Lol'.

I think you don't know what a word is - "LOL" is an acronym that means laugh out loud. If you need me to explain this to you as well, just ask.

You are proposing to conduct a discussion about the meaning of an ancient Chinese text in terms of the distinction between the English words 'wisdom' and 'true knowledge' as used in two different translations? My apologies in advance if you have in fact looked at the original text, but I suspect you have not.

My point remains, regardless of the translation chosen: Markk would be a wiser (or more intelligent, or more truly knowing - take your pick!) person by far if he took Confucius' advice, and realised that he should steer clear of discussions of a field where all he (thinks that) he knows is based on a few online videos and podcasts. Do you dispute that?

Might I suggest that you still need help. Let me try to explain using a very simple example.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say an unelected group of elites were making policy decisions for the United States for four years - deciding who would be pardoned, setting border policy, rolling out executive orders, etc....

I am willing to accept that, for the most part, this group of unelected people possess knowledge about a broad range of things. Wisdom is a completely different animal. I would suggest that this unknown group of political elites (hypothetically) are severely lacking in the wisdom department - I believe it was an act of very poor judgement, and I believe discernment was absent on a large scale.

I hope that was helpful.

Oh, sorry. I forgot that you don't do discussions.

Nowadays, by choice, I don't discuss very much on the board.

Among a few other things, I spend some time gently placing small pebbles in shoes.

[Chap]

I think the right word for me to use here is ''Lol'.

I think you don't know what a word is - "LOL" is an acronym that means laugh out loud. If you need me to explain this to you as well, just ask.

Fussy little guy, aren't you?

Oxford English Dictonary, entry 'acronym', sense 2, definition:

"A word formed from the initial letters of other words or (occasionally) from the initial parts of syllables taken from other words, the whole being pronounced as a single word (such as NATO, RADA)."

Now you know what an acronym is. It's a kind of word. Hope you will thank me for increasing your wisdom.

You are proposing to conduct a discussion about the meaning of an ancient Chinese text in terms of the distinction between the English words 'wisdom' and 'true knowledge' as used in two different translations? My apologies in advance if you have in fact looked at the original text, but I suspect you have not.


My point remains, regardless of the translation chosen: Markk would be a wiser (or more intelligent, or more truly knowing - take your pick!) person by far if he took Confucius' advice, and realised that he should steer clear of discussions of a field where all he (thinks that) he knows is based on a few online videos and podcasts. Do you dispute that?

Might I suggest that you still need help. Let me try to explain using a very simple example.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say an unelected group of elites were making policy decisions for the United States for four years - deciding who would be pardoned, setting border policy, rolling out executive orders, etc....

I am willing to accept that, for the most part, this group of unelected people possess knowledge about a broad range of things. Wisdom is a completely different animal. I would suggest that this unknown group of political elites (hypothetically) are severely lacking in the wisdom department - I believe it was an act of very poor judgement, and I believe discernment was absent on a large scale.

Point missed. If you want to argue meaningfully about what Confucius is recorded as saying, you have to look at the original text in ancient Chinese, as you would, if, for instance, you wanted to talk about what Socrates is recorded as saying, when you would have to look at the text in ancient Greek. Can you do that? If not, your discourse on the distinctions between English words gets you nowhere.

And nothing changes my final point, which relates to the topic of this thread:

My point remains, regardless of the translation chosen: Markk would be a wiser (or more intelligent, or more truly knowing - take your pick!) person by far if he took Confucius' advice, and realised that he should steer clear of discussions of a field where all he (thinks that) he knows is based on a few online videos and podcasts. Do you dispute that?

Well, do you dispute that?

[Kishkumen]

Point missed. If you want to argue meaningfully about what Confucius is recorded as saying, you have to look at the original text in ancient Chinese, as you would, if, for instance, you wanted to talk about what Socrates is recorded as saying, when you would have to look at the text in ancient Greek. Can you do that? If not, your discourse on the distinctions between English words gets you nowhere.

And nothing changes my final point, which relates to the topic of this thread:

My point remains, regardless of the translation chosen: Markk would be a wiser (or more intelligent, or more truly knowing - take your pick!) person by far if he took Confucius' advice, and realised that he should steer clear of discussions of a field where all he (thinks that) he knows is based on a few online videos and podcasts. Do you dispute that?

Well, do you dispute that?

All excellent points. Never place too much confidence in a translation or Markk's online research.

[Chap]

Never place too much confidence in a translation or Markk's online research.

If you don't mind, I'd prefer to write that slightly differently, as

"Never place too much confidence in a translation or Markk's online "research".'

What Markk, and quite a few others on who have posted on this board think of as "research" bears no relation to what professional scholars and scientists call by that name. Given that, I don't think the scare quotes are inappropriate.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

*snip*

Really.

[Some Schmo]

Polygamy isn't that bad when you take the full context into account. When Joseph Smith began cheating on his wife with Fanny Alger, he was totally unprepared for getting caught -- he had no plan. When suddenly, he was faced with circumstances he hadn't thought through, he quickly cobbled together a solution -- his options were limited. Polygamy was the fix. A lot of people imagine Joseph Smith architected polygamy out of pre-meditated desires to have sex with lots of women. Totally false. It was the outcome of bad planning.

I can believe that.

Absolutely. Cults like the church and MAGA are famous for making it up as they go along. I've always considered mopologetics creative writing, or more BS to provide cover for the last round of BS.

[ceeboo]

My point remains, regardless of the translation chosen: Markk would be a wiser (or more intelligent, or more truly knowing - take your pick!) person by far if he took Confucius' advice, and realised that he should steer clear of discussions of a field where all he (thinks that) he knows is based on a few online videos and podcasts. Do you dispute that?

Well, do you dispute that?

Here is what I dispute (And the reason I decided to engage you on this thread): I get very weary of folks like you who suggest that the opinions/perspectives/thoughts of other board members are not worthy of serious discussion (as if serious discussion is common on this board nowadays) or that you will be determining who should steer clear of discussing things. It's extraordinarily arrogant and it's exceedingly snooty.

Imagine the utopic heights the board would reach if the community was comprised of only those who were like you - people who see themselves as intellectually gifted, super enlightened, and extremely well informed (a.k.a. - Politically left leaning board members)

I realize that it was a very long time ago, but I remember a time where this community used to welcome any/all opinions/thoughts/perspectives. I remember a time that this community used to exhibit grace and was willing to extend such grace fairly frequently. I remember a time that I learned something from someone on a very regular basis - or I was provoked to think - or rethink - or I went through a process of consideration to change a stance - or I was forced to reflect about various things - or I was grateful to have been shown things. I could go on and on.

Those days are long gone.

[canpakes]

You missed the context of the temporary solution was and is in the context of the Ghettos.

Not at all.

You seem to have bogged yourself down in offering the ‘temporary solution issue of killing Jews in ghettos as somehow type of validation of Cooper’s narrative, which is not the focus of Cooper’s claim about Nazis feeling bad.

There’s no difference in the end result of killing someone in a ghetto, and killing someone in a mobile gas van, a killing center, or a concentration camp. The end result is always death.

Trying to portray Nazi concerns with not being able to kill Jews in Location A versus Location B as somehow a reflection of their empathetic attitudes is what I find problematic. Maybe you’re prepared to accept that conflation, but I do not.