Regardless of whether or not their instigators were brought to justice ala the "Nuremberg Trials" for Hitler's goons and the lot in times of Nazi Germany?
Maybe Iceland or something like that.
P.S. We know of course they were the victims, but did Jews themselves, in any times of history, do anything wrong and human rights violating deeds in any time period, no?
And should we give those nations something like an award and medal for consistent maintenance of morality, peace, loving and friendship and never allowing its nation by violent forces in governmental power to perpetuate anything even remotely resembling an atrocity on another nation or groups of people like that, let alone murder and whatnot?
(Actually, me thinks, that's not a bad idea, hmm.)
I don't think that there is such a thing as an ethnically or nationally moral and pure people. There are of course degrees of bad and then the matter of perception. Then there is the matter of the passage of time which covers the sins committed centuries ago. Such as England's treatment of Ireland for many centuries. If reliable data existed for the murder and mistreatment of the Irish by the English we may find their actions far more reprehensible then what is perceived in current times. Is the action of Germany against the Jews worse than the action of the English against the Irish if the percentage of population affected by the English is considerably higher than those by the Germans or do we go by raw numbers?
share"do we go by raw numbers?"
That would depend on what your agenda is and what you want to prove.
"but did Jews themselves, in any times of history, do anything wrong and human rights violating deeds in any time period, no?"
Now, you must be trolling. I don't actually think it's funny though.
Of course I don't have any anti-Jewish agenda, its a question of historical curiosity, that's all?
I mean, millions of Soviet and Russian people were also killed in WW2, but people have discovered we also did bad things both before, during and after the war, and when such question is asked, no one asks if one is trolling, I mean, oh come on now.
Well, according to the film "Escape From Sobibor" (1988), some Jews did collaborate with Nazis out of necessity and lack of choice, but I certainly don't know other than that if they did any serious major wrong on a grand scale ala Hitler himself.
shareFor this thread to have validity then we have to consider the murder committed by Stalin and Mao against their own citizens which is considered on par with what Hitler did if not greater. At least with Hitler outsiders got a chance to glimpse in whereas very little information flowed out of the former USSR or Red China.
shareI didn't say you had an anti-Jewish agenda, the opposite.
Read again.
The biggest rule of trolling is that it mustn't be funny.
shareThe Australian aborigines didn't do anything bad that I know of.
Bhutan?
shareDid you really suggest Iceland?
Seeing how the vikings were the peoples that settled Iceland, that's a pretty outrageous suggestion ... at least in the historical if not modern past.
But this is a pretty crazy question seeing how prior to the industrial revolution it really was a dog eat dog world where all peoples were competing for control of limited resources. Scarcity of resources will lead to bad things done by any nationality just to survive.
I don't see why the Industrial Revolution is the cutoff point in terms of defining a dog eat dog world unless you want to consider it ongoing since the mid 19th Century? Then there is the matter of defining limited resources that are vital to a nation's interest versus what may be desirable. Go back to the year 1900 Germany felt it vital to have access to resources outside of its borders in order to compete with Britain which was in part the foundation for WWI and consequently WWII.
shareIt's definitely not THE cut off point, but definitely the most conspicuous of great leaps forward in technological and economic progress in recent times that lessened the need for the constant conflicts that arose from a scarcity of resources.
Definitely did not mean to imply it as an absolute.
There's no doubt of the outsized role of geopolitics as the driver of colonialism, imperialism, and conflict of modern nation states as you cited.
So Vikings in Iceland killed a lot of innocents in order to achieve Iceland settlement?
shareI think Iceland serves as a fine example that demonstrates how the peoples of any nationality will resort to what you call "bad things" in order to survive.
The vikings that originally settled Iceland were a raiding culture that butchered and pillaged from foreign lands due to the scarcity of arable land in their home regions of Scandinavia.
Iceland had the natural resources and arable lands that the original viking settlers were able to transition completely to a society of farmers. But that didn't stop them from engaging in what you'd call "bad things" butchering each other from internal power struggles and civil wars at various points in their history when the battle over their limited resources intensified and they became subject to subordination as a vassal state of various foreign imperial interests.
It's the competition over limited resources that drives people, cultures, and nations to do what you'd call "bad things". But it should also be noted that pre-Enlightenment, many societies operated under a completely different value system by which it wasn't considered a "bad thing" to commit atrocities in the name of benefiting your own tribe. Empires of the past would lionize military commanders who would rape, pillage, and slay their way through foreign lands in order to bring home vast riches to support the empire.
I wanted to say Italy, but then I watched "The Godfather"
the truth is, so many countries hundreds of years ago were taken over by the political thugs
that when a country did something wrong, it wasn't the people that actually belonged there.
for example, when Portugal took over Brazil, it had a new leader, so if Brazil was to attack anyone
it was in name only not the people of Brazil, I just used Brazil as an example, don't know if they attacked anyone.
The initial notion of Italy as being moral is aided by perhaps its greatest sins committed by the Romans have been covered over by the dust of time so many today are not sensitive to it. Then there is the matter of organized crime being made legit more or less because the government lacks the desire to combat it long term. Anyways, the Romans murdered a fair number of people in the name of empire. They did not need spears and shields just to go make love to the local inhabitants.
shareguys (and girls) Italy was just a joke i made, the Italians brought their mafia to the USA in the early 1900's and terrorized the poor shop owners into paying for protection, they took over everything, the unions, airports, police, politicians, and on and on, it's still going on today because they were experts at it even before they came here by terrorizing their own country for hundreds of years, why do you think they control everything? but everybody knows that.
you'd be surprised to know that the biggest bosses live in Rhode Island,
[deleted]
But what I really meant was - IN WHAT nationalities did those things NOT happen?
Yes, I know there are no bad nationalities, only bad people, but still...
[deleted]