Aren't there any monuments to General Rommel? I thought he was considered anti-Nazi and was executed in the purges which took place after the bomb plot on Hitler.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Robert E. Lee Statue In Virginia Will Be Removed
- Thread starter tytlyf
- Start date
Aren't there any monuments to General Rommel? I thought he was considered anti-Nazi and was executed in the purges which took place after the bomb plot on Hitler.
tytlyf
Not Religious
I heard Rush today telling his audience about how the Klan was the paramilitary terrorists of the DemoKKKrats. Doing all the violence. What you'll never hear the RW gossip queens mention is that THOSE DemoKKKrats were conservatives.
The south wasn't liberal in 1860. It's why conservatives love the flag. The Klan loves republicans today. The parties change, the ideology remains the same. DemoKKKrats used to be racist conservatives (Dixiecrats), now those conservatives have migrated to the republican party. I think it was called the "Southern Strategy" that republicans used to bait the conservative DemoKKKrats into switching to republicans. Racism was used to make the switch.
In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]
Southern strategy - Wikipedia
Southern strategy - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
The issue here is the Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. Sure, Robert E Lee only fought for the Confederacy because it was his state was. But the cause he fought for was to preserve an institution largely built upon, fueled, enabled, and perpetuated by racism. Even compared to other slaves, Africans and later African Americans had no escape from it (every body else was an indentured servant or could only be a slave for a period of time). And even when they did escape, the South would go up and capture them (or anyone they thought looked close enough to a run away slave, really).
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
There are memorials to Rommel, but he wasn't a NAZI. I know that popular culture paints ALL Second World War German forces as "NAZI", but this is inaccurate, And a bit of a pet hate,m to be honest. How much of a good guy Rommel was, and how much is propaganda and mythologising is debatable, but he wasn't A NAZI, at any rate.
Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators have memorials too, and some of them may have actually been paid up NAZI members. I'm having difficulty findong out whether any specifically were or weren';t/
Possibly I was mistaken when I said "there are no memorials to NAZIs", there may actually be a few to NAZIs who resisted from within. Schindler, for example. My point, however, is that while there ARE memorials to German Second World War soldiers and their sacrifice, there are no memorials specifically to NAZIs for BEING NAZIs.
You might find this page interesting German War Memorials
Apologies for poor typing, I've injured two fingers on my left hand
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
1. NAZI is not an acronym, it's a shortening of "Nationalsozialist" (the "t" in "National" is pronounced like the German "z" which is a "ts" sound in German). The acronym is NSDAP (NationalSozialistische Deutsche ArbeiterPartei). (Sorry if I come off as pedantic here, but this is really a pet peeve of mine)
2. While Rommel was not a member of the NSDAP he was very definitely friendly with the Nazi leadership, who showered him with all sorts of gifts and bribe money while stylizing him as a genius military commander. (If you ever wondered where Rommel's reputation as general comes from, it's German wartime propaganda)
3. I think we should make a distinction here between a monument whose purpose is to celebrate a historic figure, and a memorial whose primary purpose is the remembrance of a historical event.
The overwhelming majority of German and Austrian war memorials are Gedenksteine that commemorate the ordinary people who died in WW2. Another significant portion are Holocaust memorials, that exist to highlight the horrible crime of the Holocaust, and to commemorate its many victims.
As far as I know, there are no monuments to glorify Wehrmacht generals anywhere in Germany or Austria.
Last edited:
Aye, no sharing of warm showers.Okay, but let's leave at that, yes?
A better way to look at it: only honour people who are worth honouring after considering the whole impact of their life.
It started out as a slur for rural Bavarians long before Hitler. Hitler hated the term "Nazi" and usually tried to suppress its use.
Apparently, Ignatius (shortened to "Nazi" as a nickname) was a common man's name in rural Catholic communities in Bavaria (edit: and very uncommon in the Protestant parts of Germany), so "Nazi" became the epithet attached to the idea of a stupid, thuggish rural Bavarian peasant.
Then Hitler and the NSDAP come along with a bunch of thugs from Bavaria and a group name that lends itself to being shortened to "Nazi"... basically, the German equivalent of a group from Appalachia calling themselves something that could be shortened to "hillbilly."
Then the German emigrants who fled the Hitler regime showed up in English-speaking countries, referring to the National Socialists as "Nazis." English-speakers either didn't know or didn't care that "Nazi" was an epithet, so that ended up being how we refer to them now.
The Confederacy was fighting to preserve slavery. But what was the North fighting for? As to the monuments (and the overall policies which existed after the Civil War), why did the North allow monuments to treason and racism to exist for so long? Why did they tolerate that for so long, and why the sudden change of heart now?
Yes.
Hardly.
tytlyf
Not Religious
Well, it's about 50/50 moderate/progressive. But I think the progressive side is taking the lead.
With the republican party it's 10/90 moderate/conservative
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
A statue doesn't change history and change people's behaviors. It's just treating one symptom rather than the cause assuming that if "there are no statues" racism would just disappear. I notice that's in a lot of our politics: cover this up or take this out or whatever, the problem would be solved.
It's not that removing the statue will solve the problem; it's that the statue is an obstacle to solving the problem.
Tearing down monuments honouring racism isn't the whole solution; it's just one part.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Virginia in itself is a racist state. Wouldn't there be another way to "fix" the problem than that?
There's no way to fix racism in Virginia that includes continuing to proudly display giant honkin' monuments honouring racism.
(And BTW: you've just about at the limit of my willingness to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're arguing in good faith)
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
Why do you assume that the people who want to topple slaver monuments are from "the North"?
All I've heard points to the driving force here being Black and progressive communities local to the issue, do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?
Do you think doctors shouldn't treat a disease's symptoms?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I think it's a human Manor if fixing. Protests makes a point. Political activists (being involved in the politics), to help the cause is better.
Maybe it helps the people who protest but after awhile it's like crying wolf.
Benefit of the doubt, huh? I just think s different method can be used. VA has a beautiful history good and bad. We can't unroot history but we can do things today that would help. Statue protest just doesn't turn everyday citizens heads. It's beyond that.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
North?
We try to treat symptoms but can do better once address the underlining cause first. If they didn't do brain surgery, they'd be treating my symptoms every other day without improvement. They found what they figure is the cause, took it out, and tossed it.
Organizations, one to one help, advocacy, among others are great. Tearing up history isn't. Uprooting KKK grave stones tells a point. Shutting down meetings (they still gave them formally in VA) is better. Yelling at police won't help. Finding political avenues to help the police department regulations is a plus.
Same intent. Different method.
Well, yes, I think any decent historical map of the Civil War would indicate that the Union states were in the North and the Confederate states were in the South.
They're obviously not toppling "slaver" monuments, or at least, that's not the purported basis for their removal. If it were, then they'd have to topple monuments for U.S. Grant and George Washington, among many, many others.
I don't really see any evidence that this is some "local" movement either. This is happening across multiple states, which would indicate that it's a national movement, not local.
I also notice that you (and others) didn't answer the questions I asked. In the present context of recent events, this isn't really a debate about the history of the Civil War or the motives of those who fought it. This is about the state of affairs in America today and how we got to this point (so the Civil War becomes relevant in that sense, but a lot of other things have happened in America as well). Does anyone seriously believe that these monuments are the cause of racism in the United States today?
A lot of people claim to want to end racism in the United States, but in order to end a thing, you have to find out what the cause is. If you don't know the cause (or unwilling to face the truth about the cause), then you won't be able to end it.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
What method could be used? Please be specific... and explain why that method is incompatible with tearing this statue down.
So far in this thread, you haven't actually suggested anything to combat racism; you've only argued for keeping a monument that honours racism.
I can see two main reasons for someone arguing against tearing the statue down right now:
1. They think that the cause of combatting racism would be better served in other methods, so those other methods should get the time, effort and resources that would have gone into getting rid of the statue, or
2. They just want to keep the statue - i.e. the giant monument honouring racism - for its own sake.
The way someone would convince me that they hold position 1 and not position 2 is by saying what other methods they have in mind.
When I say that I've given you the benefit of the doubt, I mean that I've been willing to grant that you might have ideas about other methods to combat racism you support that you just haven't told us about yet.
... but the longer we go without you (or anyone else arguing that the statue shouldn't be removed) telling us about how you think racism ought to be combatted instead, the more and more it seems to me that you don't have any other ideas in mind... i.e. that you actually hold position #2.