Remember how the Mainstream Media said they won't be coming for Jefferson and Washington Next?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It's a rather distinct building and remains almost unchanged since it's initial construction.

That's incredible!

[TGLS]

I'll freely admit the video misled me, with Reichstag in the title and the description and all.

[Makeshift Python]

Honestly, they're just statues.

[GreyICE]

It's a rather distinct building and remains almost unchanged since it's initial construction. Basically the only thing that changed is the dome, which changed from a more or less rectangular tin-plated dome to a dome made of glass and designed as a walkaround overhead the actual parliament's chamber. You'll also note the inscription "Dem deutschen Volke" (For the German People), made out of the metal of two captured french cannons from the Wars of Liberation against Napoleon in 1813 to 1815. Ironically enough, the letters were made by a jewish company and even the Nazis did not remove them and it remained there when Berlin was bombed repeatedly, damaged but still quite prominent until the very end:

You'll notice the absence of both the distinct form of the building and the words from the building in the video you linked and if you dig a bit you'll find, that the building in your video is indeed not the Reichstag, but the Zeppelintribüne, which is part of the Zeppelin-stadium of the Nazi Party's primary rally ground southest of Nürnberg.

You do appear correct! I figured that given the Nazis love of decorating absolutely everything with Swastikas, and the Reichstag fire, they'd have absolutely slapped on front and center when they rebuilt so it made sense to me. It appears they had a giant eagle inside, but no large swastika on the building.

Very misleading video title, it popped up right away when I googled to check. I should have verified it was the Reichstag before posting.

[Madner Kami]

You do appear correct! I figured that given the Nazis love of decorating absolutely everything with Swastikas, and the Reichstag fire, they'd have absolutely slapped on front and center when they rebuilt so it made sense to me. It appears they had a giant eagle inside, but no large swastika on the building.

And even that'd be wrong. You see, the word "Reichstag" refers both to the building, as well as the parliament. The Reichstag (parliament) past the fire of the Reichstag (building) was indeed meeting under the Reichsadler and a prominent Swastika:



But that isn't in the Reichstag (building). See, after the Reichstag was set on fire in February 1933 (allegedly and most likely by a dutch communist named Marinus van der Lubbe, but the "Who did it?" is a complex question with many possible answers) the Reichstag (parliament) wasn't meeting in the Reichstag (building) until after it was dissolved in 1945. Instead they met in the Kroll Opera house, almost literally on the other side of the street, which is where this picture was made (though that building was literally bombed into non-existence by the allied bombing campaigns in 1943, with the last remnants having being razed during the Battle of Berlin). The Nazis had a really interesting relation with the Reichstag (building), as, no matter the public appearences, the building was a symbol of the german parliamentarism, which is something that is quite antithetical to the Nazi's basic ideology.

Honestly, they're just statues.

No, they are much more. They are symbols and as such part and representation of the public's memories. They are literally history.

[GreyICE]

You do appear correct! I figured that given the Nazis love of decorating absolutely everything with Swastikas, and the Reichstag fire, they'd have absolutely slapped on front and center when they rebuilt so it made sense to me. It appears they had a giant eagle inside, but no large swastika on the building.

And even that'd be wrong. You see, the word "Reichstag" refers both to the building, as well as the parliament. The Reichstag (parliament) past the fire of the Reichstag (building) was indeed meeting under the Reichsadler and a prominent Swastika:

We have a similar construction in English interestingly - the Senate can refer to both the building and the group, but the Senate meets in the Senate (and the House in the House). I didn't think they'd get divorced, but it makes sense.

Honestly, they're just statues.

No, they are much more. They are symbols and as such part and representation of the public's memories. They are literally history.

Well... kind of. I am reminded of Herodotus, the "father of history" who will also get referred to as "the father of lies" for his habit of mixing in things that are pure and utter fantasy in the middle of a discussion of history. As a historian explained it, the idea of history as an objective documentation of the past didn't show up for over a millenia after Herodotus. There was no distinction between history, propaganda, and morality tales. They were all mixed together.

That version of history can be thought of as more cultural mythology. It's not like we're immune nowadays. The wild west where cowboys roamed and shootouts happened in small wooden towns, the cunning American revolutionaries hiding in the woods from the stupid British soldiers who could only march in formation, George Washington the military genius who won the day when no one else could, the persecuted religious groups sailing to America to find freedom.

Does it matter if from an objective factual standpoint, none of those things are true? I mean on the one hand, sure. They're objectively false, stories we tell ourselves because we didn't like the truth and edited it. On the other hand, they're part of our culture (even if they are, y'know, total fiction).

That's what statues are. They are cultural mythology, history-as-myth.

[phantom000]

You do appear correct! I figured that given the Nazis love of decorating absolutely everything with Swastikas, and the Reichstag fire, they'd have absolutely slapped on front and center when they rebuilt so it made sense to me. It appears they had a giant eagle inside, but no large swastika on the building.

And even that'd be wrong. You see, the word "Reichstag" refers both to the building, as well as the parliament. The Reichstag (parliament) past the fire of the Reichstag (building) was indeed meeting under the Reichsadler and a prominent Swastika:

We have a similar construction in English interestingly - the Senate can refer to both the building and the group, but the Senate meets in the Senate (and the House in the House). I didn't think they'd get divorced, but it makes sense.

Honestly, they're just statues.

No, they are much more. They are symbols and as such part and representation of the public's memories. They are literally history.

Well... kind of. I am reminded of Herodotus, the "father of history" who will also get referred to as "the father of lies" for his habit of mixing in things that are pure and utter fantasy in the middle of a discussion of history. As a historian explained it, the idea of history as an objective documentation of the past didn't show up for over a millenia after Herodotus. There was no distinction between history, propaganda, and morality tales. They were all mixed together.

That version of history can be thought of as more cultural mythology. It's not like we're immune nowadays. The wild west where cowboys roamed and shootouts happened in small wooden towns, the cunning American revolutionaries hiding in the woods from the stupid British soldiers who could only march in formation, George Washington the military genius who won the day when no one else could, the persecuted religious groups sailing to America to find freedom.

Does it matter if from an objective factual standpoint, none of those things are true? I mean on the one hand, sure. They're objectively false, stories we tell ourselves because we didn't like the truth and edited it. On the other hand, they're part of our culture (even if they are, y'know, total fiction).

That's what statues are. They are cultural mythology, history-as-myth.

This is kind of the reason i oppose the removal of Confederate Memorials. Someone said they 'promote an anti-history agenda' well, prove to me you are not doing exactly that. Memorials to southern citizens who died in the Confederate Army should be left in place to emphasize the human cost of the war. These men weren't monsters, they had families and whenever one of them died they were missed and that is what we shouldn't forget.

Sherman made a point of leaving nothing behind him and Grant's whole strategy was keep throwing blacks at Lee until the Confederates ran out of ammunition. Today, a general who did that would be charged with war crimes but people tend to forget that because it gets in the way of North's version of the Civil War.

[GreyICE]

This is kind of the reason i oppose the removal of Confederate Memorials. Someone said they 'promote an anti-history agenda' well, prove to me you are not doing exactly that.

Prove to me that you're not a lizard person. Go on.

Have fun with the "prove a negative"

Memorials to southern citizens who died in the Confederate Army should be left in place to emphasize the human cost of the war. These men weren't monsters, they had families and whenever one of them died they were missed and that is what we shouldn't forget.

Sherman made a point of leaving nothing behind him and Grant's whole strategy was keep throwing blacks at Lee until the Confederates ran out of ammunition.

Sherman destroyed supply lines. Railroads, food stores, ammunition dumps, anything the south could use to supply an army. That's a bog standard tactic called "destroying the supply line", and he certainly was nothing like the "total war" of World War 2. He specifically forbid any murder or massacres, and hung three of his own troops who were accused of rape. His men burnt down houses at times, but he forbid it as a general practice, unless they were fired upon from a house. He specifically left civilians alive, and even tried to keep them fed, and when he captured Atlanta he only destroyed military facilities.

And no, Grant didn't use "human wave attacks." Grant was very different from other union commanders because he was extremely aggressive - which is not at all the same thing. The other Union commanders would typically let the South get in position with cannons, and just fire on them from static positions. Their philosophy was the "single decisive battle" philosophy used by the Japanese at Midway - find a point where you can engage all of their force with all of your force, and then go attack them. Lee, being a non-idiot, chose to like the Americans spread his forces out and harry the Union.

Grant would engage aggressively, on multiple fronts, which would completely screw up Lee's harrying tactics. He wasn't a brilliant strategist, but what he was was a lifelong infantryman, and he understood more people died from poor sanitation and poor conditions than died from enemy bullets (this was true in every war up to WW2). He was good tactically, and was good at using terrain to his advantage to press further assaults.

Grant's reputation as "a butcher" comes almost entirely from revisionist lost cause mythology. Thee death totals show that his army often suffered similar or lesser casualties to the confederates. His consistent aggression could produce a lot of deaths on both sides, but it also took key points, and when the south retreated they usually suffered as they did so. He was very good at turning deaths into permanent gains, while prior to Grant commanders were adept at turning deaths into nothing at all.

If this sort of nonsensical fantasy is what you want to present as "history" then yeah, I want nothing to do with it. Because lets be really clear, what you wrote is a bunch of falsehoods and myths.

https://www.historynet.com/the-butchers-bill.htm
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/rethinking-shermans-march/

The South mythology is so fucking stupid. They decided to fight a war to own slaves, and then discovered that oh my god, wars aren't some sort of tea party. So who could be at fault? The North! For not fighting a really gentle war!

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

No, they are much more. They are symbols and as such part and representation of the public's memories. They are literally history.

As far as why there is a good deal of consideration as to whether to take them down, sure. As far as a reason plainly to keep them up, not quite.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Madner, thank you for that history lesson. =o I had no idea.

Amazing how Madner managed to share that history with us without using a statue.