Well, yeah, but that quickly leads you down the "But Hitler built the Autobahn" path.
Ask a Belgian
- Thread starter strijder20
- Start date
Jan H
Prince
The balance good vs. bad clearly is not always 50/50
For Hitler, I would estimate it at 0.01/99.99
Also, according to Godwin's Law, you have now lost this debate
anandus
Errorist
Interestingly there were also some alternatives, like The Talleyrand plan (which was enormously in favour of France (and to a lesser extent Prussia), as it was made by a French ambassador, as Wallonia at that time was the most industrialized area of continental Europe and economically immensly prosperous)
velosepappe
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 141
These comics have different names in different languages ('Bob et Bobette' in french), they are comics directed to a more young public, but they are not always simple. I think many adults still read them because of nostalgia. The comic itself is allready in the running for 60 years.
Godwin's Law doesn't state who loses a thread, only what will happenThe balance good vs. bad clearly is not always 50/50
For Hitler, I would estimate it at 0.01/99.99
Also, according to Godwin's Law, you have now lost this debate
Anyway, my point is this: you can't really argue about several random good things a historical figure brought about when the big picture is still pretty bad.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
This statues side debate is kind of interesting. I'd view it as a relic of history not as a veneration, like Strider says. Sure in the modern day the dictator gets hung a little bit after his statue is toppled to the ground, but it's like being bitter about Tutankhamun's burial mask---I mean that guy owned slaves didn't he?
The Southern USA has tons of statutes and burials to the Confederate army of the ACW. We choose to remember that it happened without endorsing the negative of it. In that light, I doubt Leopold's statue should be held in the same manner as a Swatiska or a Confederate flag. And no doubt some peoples would take offense to be comparing the Confederate flag to a Swatiska.
I'd just let it drop. This isn't the invasion of a current dictatorship with potential reactionary groups that might rally if we don't obliterate every remembrance of the old regime.
The Southern USA has tons of statutes and burials to the Confederate army of the ACW. We choose to remember that it happened without endorsing the negative of it. In that light, I doubt Leopold's statue should be held in the same manner as a Swatiska or a Confederate flag. And no doubt some peoples would take offense to be comparing the Confederate flag to a Swatiska.
I'd just let it drop. This isn't the invasion of a current dictatorship with potential reactionary groups that might rally if we don't obliterate every remembrance of the old regime.
strijder20
Wallowing in irony
Godwin's Law doesn't state who loses a thread, only what will happen
Anyway, my point is this: you can't really argue about several random good things a historical figure brought about when the big picture is still pretty bad.
OT: What do you consider bad?
Do you consider an action bad if it leads to much misery?
Let's imagine Hitler would have been shot in WWI. Possible result : WW2 is prolonged by 10 years (but still comes), and now includes a lot more nuclear action. That could have been worse than the real WW2.
Well, you can say 'bad' means 'bad intentions'. But I'm sure that Hitler didn't think 'Oh, let's ruin the life of tens of millions Europeans and the inhabitants of their (former) colonies, fun!', but more something like 'Let's win this war and make world perfect'. I'm sure that Hitler saw the Third Reich as something good, not something bad.
But I think it is pretty much undisputed Hitler is bad.
How do we define bad then? Knowingly harm or end other people's lives by your actions? I think many people are guilty to that, but not all of them are considered as 'bad'. Churchill, for example, was responsible for the dead of many million Englishmen by not immediately surrendering to Germany.
Any ideas?
Jan H
Prince
Maybe we should leave this for another thread
Back to the topic: It's almost certain now that we will get a new government on Monday. I'm not sure yet which smiley to use:
or 
...
strijder20
Wallowing in irony
Maybe we should leave this for another thread
Back to the topic: It's almost certain now that we will get a new government on Monday. I'm not sure yet which smiley to use:
Hmm, maybe. That's why I listed it as OT, though. But as people were holding the discussion about Leopold 2 in this thread...
Why would you frown? I can imagine better governments too, but anything is better than another month of waiting...
Jan H
Prince
Sure, but I'm not jumping for joy either.
The coalition agreement looks like another monstrosity full of Belgian "waffle iron" compromises (*) that makes things yet more complicated, instead of simpler. And 6 party coalitions have never proven to be stable in the past. So we will see what comes...
(*) if you don't know what "waffle iron politics" are, this might be the thread to ask
Jan H
Prince
In the 1980's, many decisions in Belgium were taken following the "waffle iron" principle.For every franc that thegovernment invested in Flanders, the same amount had to be invested in Wallonia and vice versa. An extension to the harbours of Antwerp or Zeebrugge? A new canal had to be built in Hainaut. Government subsidies for an aerospace company in Wallonia? The same amount of mony had to go to a Flemish bank that had troubles. And so on. In the end this lead to numerous silly projects that just wasted a lot of money, and caused the Belgian government debt to increase strongly. The most famous example is the largely unused boat lift in Strépy-Thieu
With the government reforms of the late 80's and early 90's, which transformed the country into a federal state, the waffle iron politics mostly came to an end, because government domains like infrastructure were regionalized.
The term "Waffle iron politics" was invented by the Flemish press, and refers to the two identical halfs of a waffle iron.
With the government reforms of the late 80's and early 90's, which transformed the country into a federal state, the waffle iron politics mostly came to an end, because government domains like infrastructure were regionalized.
The term "Waffle iron politics" was invented by the Flemish press, and refers to the two identical halfs of a waffle iron.
Rulle_Kebab
Warlord
New government! What do you think of it?
And did you finally shave?!
And did you finally shave?!
Jan H
Prince
yeay, we got a government for Sinterklaas
(= Belgian/Dutch version of Santaclaus, who brings presents for the children on 6 december instead of on Christmas...)
A couple of unexpected names, but nothing too much out of the ordinary.
Steven Van Ackere (Flemish christian-democrat) and Didier Reynders (Francophone liberal-democrat) where both deputy prime minister in the previous government as well, but they have switched functions (foreign affairs <=> finance). Reynders had been on finance for a very long time (since the government-Verhofstadt), and he did get good points in the international press, but in Belgium he was criticized a lot about the mismanagement of the tax revenue ministry (infighting between high level civil servants, reforms that have taken years and are still not completed...).
(= Belgian/Dutch version of Santaclaus, who brings presents for the children on 6 december instead of on Christmas...)
They better get on with it. That's what I think about it
A couple of unexpected names, but nothing too much out of the ordinary.
Steven Van Ackere (Flemish christian-democrat) and Didier Reynders (Francophone liberal-democrat) where both deputy prime minister in the previous government as well, but they have switched functions (foreign affairs <=> finance). Reynders had been on finance for a very long time (since the government-Verhofstadt), and he did get good points in the international press, but in Belgium he was criticized a lot about the mismanagement of the tax revenue ministry (infighting between high level civil servants, reforms that have taken years and are still not completed...).
strijder20
Wallowing in irony
Hey, I was about to post that 
anandus
Errorist
Congratulations on a new government!
One thing I noticed is that the people in the government aren't the political leaders of the parties, is this correct?
Doesn't that give a bad signal? Of the parties not having faith in the new government?
Or does it have to do with the fact that Belgium has seven parliaments and political 'heads' are more spread out like that?
One thing I noticed is that the people in the government aren't the political leaders of the parties, is this correct?
Doesn't that give a bad signal? Of the parties not having faith in the new government?
Or does it have to do with the fact that Belgium has seven parliaments and political 'heads' are more spread out like that?
The Belgian version is on the 6th, the Dutch version is on the 5thyeay, we got a government for Sinterklaas
(= Belgian/Dutch version of Santaclaus, who brings presents for the children on 6 december instead of on Christmas...)
strijder20 said:
given the context, it would have to be positive and in some alternative fascist germany. which is kind of the point. germans are sane like that and have been since 1945.
strijder20 said:
bull. leopold isn't shown carrying around a bag of hands. also, what why the methods matter?
strijder20 said:
arguably the worst apologism for hitler i've ever seen. it could have been worse. really. that's your argument? that leopold's actions are justified/justifiably/not all that bad because there's a possibility however slim it could have been worse.
strijder20 said:
oh my god. hitler's not a bad guy because he couldn't have possibly wanted to exterminate the jews/slavs/gypsies/gays/communists/disabled and couldn't have possibly foreseen that the war was going to be a long bloody one. jaysus. you might even think that hitler wasn't gassing the disabled and/or killing his political enemies before the war made him bad. or that he hadn't fought in WW1 and couldn't have possibly realised that wars against the rest of europe might be bloody. or that mein kampf was pretty upfront about his intentions viz. jews et. al. in short. what the hell.
to use your logic. if hitler had good intentions before the war, therefore the holocaust wasn't bad. that's makes two assumptions (1) that he wasn't planning on killing the jews/exterminating slavs and generally embarking on a war of general european conquest and (2) that any subsequent actions made with bad intentions don't matter because hitler hadn't entered the war with those intentions. to take this down to the everyday, i could choose a fixed point in time and justify genocide on the basis that i didn't have bad intentions at that point. that i might subsequently have developed them in your scheme wouldn't matter.
cunning apologist is cunning.
strijder20 said:
ah, it wasn't hitler's fault. but churchills for fighting back. i guess it's the rape victims fault to and the murder victims. *yawn*
two points: none of this is relevant to leopold. and if i wanted apologism for hitler i'd go to stormfront.
strijder20 said:
stop apologising for genocidal dictators.
Jan H said:
Leoreth said:
nod. it's also ********. we don't let murderers let alone a murderer of millions walk free because they were good architects.
Jan H said:
owning slaves =/ slaughter of millions.
Remove statues won't change much though. It won't change the perception people have of him and it certainly won't remove him from our collective memory. If you want to do that, you should burn Brussels to the ground and build it anew.
Similar threads
