I couldn't find a thread like this anywhere, so
What is the general political outlook of dakka?
Obviously the left/right system has its flaws, but it's useful as a way of gauging peoples/politicians general outlook.
I'd say centre left, I generally favour a regulated free market economy with limited government involvement.
I label myself center right (because I believe strongly in bipartisanship and political compromise), but in a lot of ways i'm farther to the right than most people defined as being "far right"
Though its actually labeled as a far right political ideology, national socialism (and really in a lot of ways fascism in general) is very much a leftist political philosophy. The only reason its placed on the right is its anti-communist stance...
But who is right? Most would go with Conservatives or even Nationalsoicalists, despite hardly the opposite of the left side.
In fact the Liberals are the opposite of the Socialists (how much state do we want) and thus should be the right side with the conservatives in the middle (mixing how much state they want).
And the Nationalsocialist would be right next to the communists on the left side (on the right side).
National Socialists are one of those groups that break the conventional political spectrum, and therefore illustrate why it isn't useful when you start looking closely.
warpcrafter wrote:
Government has nothing to do with personal power or security. It's about corruption and greed.
Corruption is a non sequitur, as it assumes a particular purpose that is separate from that which is indicated. I can tell you that my sole purpose is the acquisition of power, and the control of others, and still be a governing force.
Greed is, well, a basal element of the pursuit of personal power and security.
You, basically, just sound like a guy that thinks he can't win, which is probably true given that initial sentiment.
Are we talking American left, right and centre, or left, right and centre according to the rest of the world?
But more seriously, the political spectrum is shifted in different countries. Personally I can see attraction in various traditional left and right beliefs.
Yes, I agree that the NSDPA broke the political spectrum. But for the sake of others, I always say I'm far right so they get the jist. It's surprising how many people dislike Nazism, so I rarely say what I am and what i believe in....
(This is coming from someone who's great grandmother fled from Poland to escape persecution)
DeadlySquirrel wrote:It's surprising how many people dislike Nazism
It is surprising? Really?
I do not wish to argue. Suffice to say, that history is written by the victors.... Nuff said.
Besides that being a bit of hokum, it really doesn't address the fact you are surprised that so many dislike Nazism. If anything it argues that you wouldn't be surprised that it is disliked. Are you sure you aren't conflating general Fascism with Nazism?
This isn't about what Nazism is about, but my confusion at you being surprised.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:It's surprising how many people dislike Nazism
It is surprising? Really?
I do not wish to argue. Suffice to say, that history is written by the victors.... Nuff said.
Besides that being a bit of hokum, it really doesn't address the fact you are surprised that so many dislike Nazism. If anything it argues that you wouldn't be surprised that it is disliked. Are you sure you aren't conflating general Fascism with Nazism?
This isn't about what Nazism is about, but my confusion at you being surprised.
It is a good concept. The economic reforms being of most importance. I'm surprised so many dislike it and we all get shunned because of it, because it actually works well. Too many people have listened to the anti-Nazi propaganda. I'm more surprised that so many people are just sheep that will listen to everything the government says, every peice of propaganda bad mouthing the Nazis without even thinking to look up what they did and all of the good bits about it.
THAT is why I am surprised.
And yes, I am a Nazi.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:Perhaps he means national socialism rather than Nazism?
That's what Nazism is, dude.
Actually Nazism is not properly socialist. Gordon Brown was a Nation Socialist. He had nationalistic tendencies and was a Socialist. The NSDAP are different.
corpsesarefun wrote:Then why are you surprised that people hate the Nazi party?
This is why I never really talk about my political beleifs. Haters gon' hate.
Because of what they did for Germany. By separating the Mark from other currencies by linking it to "units of work" and not to market speculation, they had the most stable currency in history, because the currency cannot fluctuate. One unit of work will always be the same. Because of this, they managed to drag themselves out of a terrible state. It helped the economy so much. That form of currency is one of only two that can ever properly work (the other being trading in actual gold). Most people just say "They killed Jews, they were bad." Under Stalin, nearly twice as many were killed... And yet Communism is far more acceptable despite being the worst form of government imaginable.
The difference is the hatred of jews and non-aryan races was/is part of Nazism, killing millions of your own citizens isn't a normal part of communism unless something goes horribly wrong.
corpsesarefun wrote:The difference is the hatred of jews and non-aryan races was/is part of Nazism, killing millions of your own citizens isn't a normal part of communism unless something goes horribly wrong.
Less than 2% of Russia was made of European Jews, and 50% of ALL revolutionaries were European Jews. They were killing there own people....
For myself, using the defniitions of the political compass site:
Moderate right economic (IE regulated free trade, regulated free markets, progressive taxation, but I don't support government ownership of businesses, etc).
Definitely left social policies using the traditional definition of liberal (IE pro-choice, for regulated gun rights and ownership, pro gay marriage, for the separation of church and state, etc)
The Holocaust was a natural extension of the militant racism inherent in Nazism whereas communism doesn't inherently mean killing millions of your own people as Stalin did.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:That form of currency is one of only two that can ever properly work (the other being trading in actual gold)
If you think the gold standard actually works you really need to read up more on history.
Having a country's monetary units dependant on the fluctuating value of gold would be disastrous in this day and age, especially with all of the gold speculators on the market.
corpsesarefun wrote:I think you misunderstood my point.
The Holocaust was a natural extension of the militant racism inherent in Nazism whereas communism doesn't inherently mean killing millions of your own people as Stalin did.
Ever thought they had a reason to kill the Jews?
Perhaps it was because the Jewish banks supported the German War effort in WW1, until Britain made a deal with the banks to bring America into the war and in return the Jews would get Palestine. Or that Communism, the biggest threat to Europe was a Jewish movement? It's all documented. And even if it wasn't true, it is what the Germany people thought. See "Stab-in-the-back" theory put forward by a German General after their surrender.
I in no way condone their actions, but it wasn't just racism. They had a reason.
If you want to talk about certain ideas which are fine independent of nazism, fine, go ahead, but trying to defend nazism itself is morally abhorrent-- it was created for and by racist, mysoginistic, and homophobic pieces of violent amoral trash, and it is perpetuated by the same in the modern era.
It is an ideology steeped in racism to its very core, believing in eugenics and that some mythical "master race" deserves to rule over everyone else, an ideology that would punish women for not wanting to breed this master race, an ideology taht would punish homosexuals as deviants and send them to die in torture camps along with those of the wrong race or political ideology. All of this was perfectly sanctioned by the ideology, not just by the political party-- because the one master race was perfect and could do no wrong and everyone else was an inferior sub-human that did not need to be treated with equality.
Trying to defend nazism by ignoring all of this is wrong on so many levels...
Melissia wrote:For myself, using the defniitions of the political compass site:
Moderate right economic (IE regulated free trade, regulated free markets, progressive taxation, but I don't support government ownership of businesses, etc).
Definitely left social policies using the traditional definition of liberal (IE pro-choice, for regulated gun rights and ownership, pro gay marriage, for the separation of church and state, etc)
Here in Germany thats all part of the conservatives (so called ,,right") too.
Melissia wrote:For myself, using the defniitions of the political compass site:
Moderate right economic (IE regulated free trade, regulated free markets, progressive taxation, but I don't support government ownership of businesses, etc).
Definitely left social policies using the traditional definition of liberal (IE pro-choice, for regulated gun rights and ownership, pro gay marriage, for the separation of church and state, etc)
Here in Germany thats all part of the conservatives (so called ,,right") too.
Edit: Now.
Melissia wrote:If you want to talk about certain ideas which are fine independent of nazism, fine, go ahead, but trying to defend nazism itself is morally abhorrent-- it was created for and by racist, mysoginistic, and homophobic pieces of violent amoral trash, and it is perpetuated by the same in the modern era.
It is an ideology steeped in racism to its very core, believing in eugenics and that some mythical "master race" deserves to rule over everyone else, an ideology that would punish women for not wanting to breed this master race, an ideology taht would punish homosexuals as deviants and send them to die in torture camps along with those of the wrong race or political ideology. All of this was perfectly sanctioned by the ideology, not just by the political party-- because the one master race was perfect and could do no wrong and everyone else was an inferior sub-human that did not need to be treated with equality.
Trying to defend nazism by ignoring all of this is wrong on so many levels...
Center Left. I agree with numerous conservative view points, although not nearly enough to be called a centrist.
Pro-War (a 'hawk'), pro-abortion, pro-death penalty. I have strong views on natural conservation and animal rights though. I'm fiercely anti-communist too. I agree that the rich should be taxed proportionately to the rest of us. I believe in natural selection, and that most people are totally incapable of doing certain things. I'm a bit racist against africans (not african americans ), and I'm not sure why. I'm leaning towards being pro-torture, although I don't think they use it for things that are actually important.
Spoiler:
Torturing random taliban members just doesn't seem like it would gleam too much pertinent information. Certainly, if the matter is of urgent national securtiy (which it never is), torture would be appropriate. Not trying to derail thread. Just explaining myself.
I'm sure my viewpoints will mature after being in the real world for a while.
corpsesarefun wrote:whereas communism doesn't inherently mean killing millions of your own people as Stalin did.
Yes, actually it does. In fact, mass murder is far more central to Communism than it is to Nazism.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:Ever thought they had a reason to kill the Jews?
Someone once raised an interesting question. Is the following statement antisemetic: "If what Hitler said about the Jews was correct, then the Holocaust was justified."
DeadlySquirrel wrote:It's surprising how many people dislike Nazism
It's not that people dislike Nazism, lots of people like Nazism. They just don't like the label Nazism.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:According to family history, a family member died at Auschwitz.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:Ever thought they had a reason to kill the Jews?
Someone once raised an interesting question. Is the following statement antisemetic: "If what Hitler said about the Jews was correct, then the Holocaust was justified."
somehow I missed that gem thanks Biccat.
For your part the statement itself is not antisemitic, nor is any and all criticism leveled at the Jews. However I think we can all agree that the persecution and mass murder of the Jews during the Holocaust was antisemitic.
For the Squirrel, nobody can produce a good reason to kill millions of people, not in war and certainly not by planned genocide. Otherwise the Jews in Israel would have found a final solution to the Palestinian problem by now.
I expected anarchism and all kinds of other dumbassery when I clicked this thread, but I never, in a million years, expected someone to be in here defending Nazism.
It's little surprises like this that keep me coming back to the OT.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and Center Right I suppose.
When it boils down to it, the majority of Dakka doesn't matter on the political spectrum.
Only a few (not a handful, but small in comparison to the rest of Dakka) Dakka-ites post significantly to have their political opinions matter and therefore have others form opinions on where Dakka lies.
Yes but communist ideology itself doesn't generally feature race or institutionalised mass homicide, it tends to be much more about "the workers uniting" and "all men being equal" and such airy crap.
corpsesarefun wrote:Yes but communist ideology itself doesn't generally feature race or institutionalised mass homicide, it tends to be much more about "the workers uniting" and "all men being equal" and such airy crap.
Nazism is by default racist though.
And yet Nazism is considered far more abhorrent than Communism... I ain't even gonna go into Zionistic Conspiracies.
Why though? If people wanna know the truth, then will have researched it. Me telling people it will just me look stupid. Even more so than I already do for my beliefs
corpsesarefun wrote:Yes but communist ideology itself doesn't generally feature race or institutionalised mass homicide, it tends to be much more about "the workers uniting" and "all men being equal" and such airy crap.
Nazism is by default racist though.
And yet Nazism is considered far more abhorrent than Communism... I ain't even gonna go into Zionistic Conspiracies.
I just said why Nazism is more abhorrent, it's inherently racist and genocidal as that's how the movements creators defined it.
corpsesarefun wrote:Yes but communist ideology itself doesn't generally feature race or institutionalised mass homicide, it tends to be much more about "the workers uniting" and "all men being equal" and such airy crap.
Nazism is by default racist though.
And yet Nazism is considered far more abhorrent than Communism... I ain't even gonna go into Zionistic Conspiracies.
I just said why Nazism is more abhorrent, it's inherently racist and genocidal as that's how the movements creators defined it.
Yes, and Communism is tolerated... Despite killing millions more.
Again, history is written by the victors. So the Allies just wrote it saying "Nazism is bad and stuff". Zionism, Zionism everywhere.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:Yes, and Communism is tolerated... Despite killing millions more.
... just like many have died in the name of democracy. Just like many have died in the name of religion. Just like many have died in the name of freedom.
Communism itself, for all of its many flaws, does not prescribe genocide. Genocide has happened in Communism's name, but genocide does not define communism any more than, say, a tyrant putting up fake elections defines democracy. Nazism does prescribe genocide.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:Yes, and Communism is tolerated... Despite killing millions more.
... just like many have died in the name of democracy. Just like many have died in the name of religion. Just like many have died in the name of freedom.
Communism itself, for all of its many flaws, does not prescribe genocide. Nazism does.
Then why is the death toll under communism so much higher?
Melissia wrote:Communism itself, for all of its many flaws, does not prescribe genocide. Nazism does.
Then why is the death toll under communism so much higher?
Because communism is a poorly thought out system of governance which is very easy to abuse, and people who got to the top of the political food chain (despite the fact that there shouldn't be one in communism by its ideals) abused their power so that they could stay in power.
Would you say that a person who takes control of a democratic countryand abuses his/her powers to dominate the political landscape and form a dictatorship means all democracy is bad? There have been many instances of tyrants coming to power this way. Hitler was one of them I should remind you.
No, Communism is flawed for entirely different reasons.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:Yes, and Communism is tolerated... Despite killing millions more.
... just like many have died in the name of democracy. Just like many have died in the name of religion. Just like many have died in the name of freedom.
Communism itself, for all of its many flaws, does not prescribe genocide. Nazism does.
Then why is the death toll under communism so much higher?
Because Russian and China have a higher number of people in general. If a country with 1 billion kills off 10% of it's population and a country of 40 million kills off 50% of it's population the former country would have still killed more people overall. The numbers game is lame anyway, and really stupid. The idea that Nazi Germany is better than Stalinist Russia becuase it is responsible for less deaths is idiotic since both are on the atrocity level; both are terrible and should be remembered as such.
That being said, Melissa is right that the inherent ideology of Communism does not extort any specific racial or religious hatred. One can always embrace the ideology and be taken into the fold even if one is Nigerian or Jewish. In Nazism there are several groups that never will be tolerated for any reason and will be actively sought out to destroy. Essentially in Communism it is join us or we will kill you, and in Nazism it is join us or we will kill you, unless you are X, Y, or Z, in which case we will kill you anyway. Both are pretty sucky options and lead to killing, it is that one is more aggressive in its literature that it gonna do some ethnic purging.
Communism requires a dictator to enforce the 'will of the people.' And ultimately it's the will of the dictator that matters. If a few hundred people have to die to help the majority, what's the harm?
Communism requires a dictator to enforce the 'will of the people.' And ultimately it's the will of the dictator that matters. If a few hundred people have to die to help the majority, what's the harm?
Precisely my point; communism (presuming the dictator did release his power) can not lead to mass genocide.
Nazism, however, will always lead to mass genocide.
corpsesarefun wrote:Precisely my point; communism (presuming the dictator did release his power) can not lead to mass genocide.
Nazism, however, will always lead to mass genocide.
So long as Communism is abandoned it won't lead to mass murder? I suppose that makes sense.
I'm pretty sure Nazism doesn't require genocide. After all, Fascism was very similar to Nazism, and Mussolini didn't engage in Genocide...at least not in Italy.
Communism requires a dictator to enforce the 'will of the people.'
No it doesn't, and the writing doesn't call for one. It of course almost always leads to one becuase, man, that is a lot of concentrated power, but you don't have to have a dictator to have Communism. China hasn't been a dictatorship for a while. Hugely oppressive? Sure. Dictorship? No. A system can be just as destructive as any individual, you don't need a Dictator to be awful.
I have heard, that no matter the subject, Nazis always crop up somehow.
Gotta agree with both of both sides here: The Nazi Government did a great deal for Germany. Had Hitler not been what he was, Germany would have remained powerful. I think that surprise at Nazi hate is a little odd though, considering what they did in the end...
corpsesarefun wrote:Precisely my point; communism (presuming the dictator did release his power) can not lead to mass genocide.
Nazism, however, will always lead to mass genocide.
So long as Communism is abandoned it won't lead to mass murder? I suppose that makes sense.
I'm pretty sure Nazism doesn't require genocide. After all, Fascism was very similar to Nazism, and Mussolini didn't engage in Genocide...at least not in Italy.
Communism normally needs a dictator to enforce the changes (or a figurehead to act as a catalyst in shifting from a democratic system) to start out, after everything is set up it isn't necessary to have a dictator as long as the population is happy with being communist. Where it normally goes wrong is this initial stage where the dictator abuses his power (as is inevitable in all forms of dictatorship).
Nazism is by definition racist to the point of genocide, that's one of the features that distinguishes it from other similar forms of fascism or national socialism.
Nazism is the specific ideology of the superiority of the "Aryan" peoples over all others...communism is not.
Read the communist manifesto and tell me the part that says "btw feel free to murder your people at will". You can't, because it's not there.
We are more culturally opposed to nazism for two reasons,
1)We fought the nazis in the war
2)There is a cultural tradition of people on the far left being prominent in society, less so with the far right
4oursword wrote:The Nazi Government did a great deal for Germany.
I guess creating a bubble economy that will burst any moment and needs to be propped up by war to temporarily suppress the upcoming collapse could be considered good by some. The German economy under the regime was not stable nor long term. It created the illusion of prosperity, which, is a pretty poor measure of doing well. Getting trains to run on time doesn't really balance out all the British, French, US, Russian, et al lives that were lost. Even without the Holocaust they would be rightly disliked.
Ahtman wrote:I guess creating a bubble economy that will burst any moment and needs to be propped up by war to temporarily suppress the upcoming collapse could be considered good by some. The German economy under the regime was not stable nor long term. It created the illusion of prosperity, which, is a pretty poor measure of doing well. Getting trains to run on time doesn't really balance out all the British, French, US, Russian, et al lives that were lost. Even without the Holocaust they would be rightly disliked.
seeing how all the politicans in my homeland are the long lost relatives of Trolls from WHFB I have no intrest in who rules Norway. They all do a equaly gakky job anyways
Joey wrote:Nazism is the specific ideology of the superiority of the "Aryan" peoples over all others...communism is not.
Read the communist manifesto and tell me the part that says "btw feel free to murder your people at will". You can't, because it's not there.
We are more culturally opposed to nazism for two reasons,
1)We fought the nazis in the war
2)There is a cultural tradition of people on the far left being prominent in society, less so with the far right
Thats not right Nazis are just Socialist with Nationalistic traits. Thats the difference to communists. You dont need to be against Jews or for Aryans. The Exact opposite of the Natinalsocialist is therefor the Liberal/Libertarian side, and because the Anglo-Saxon countries always leaned that way, Nationalsocialism had (luckily) a tough stand there.
Joey wrote:Nazism is the specific ideology of the superiority of the "Aryan" peoples over all others...communism is not.
Read the communist manifesto and tell me the part that says "btw feel free to murder your people at will". You can't, because it's not there.
We are more culturally opposed to nazism for two reasons,
1)We fought the nazis in the war
2)There is a cultural tradition of people on the far left being prominent in society, less so with the far right
Thats not right Nazis are just Socialist with Nationalistic traits. Thats the difference to communists. You dont need to be against Jews or for Aryans. The Exact opposite of the Natinalsocialist is therefor the Liberal/Libertarian side, and because the Anglo-Saxon countries always leaned that way, Nationalsocialism had (luckily) a tough stand there.
No, no, no.
Nazism (you mean Facism) is anticommunism. The extreme opposite of communism. Socialism is Communism Light.
Kilkrazy wrote:Nazis are the supporters of Hitler.
No they arent. There are Nazis today, that dont support Hitler.
thenoobbomb wrote:
Dark Scipio wrote:
Joey wrote:Nazism is the specific ideology of the superiority of the "Aryan" peoples over all others...communism is not.
Read the communist manifesto and tell me the part that says "btw feel free to murder your people at will". You can't, because it's not there.
We are more culturally opposed to nazism for two reasons,
1)We fought the nazis in the war
2)There is a cultural tradition of people on the far left being prominent in society, less so with the far right
Thats not right Nazis are just Socialist with Nationalistic traits. Thats the difference to communists. You dont need to be against Jews or for Aryans. The Exact opposite of the Natinalsocialist is therefor the Liberal/Libertarian side, and because the Anglo-Saxon countries always leaned that way, Nationalsocialism had (luckily) a tough stand there.
No, no, no.
Nazism (you mean Facism) is anticommunism. The extreme opposite of communism. Socialism is Communism Light.
Communist are radical Socialist right. But Nazis are anticommunists, because they share so many traits and cant both exists. Its not the opposite. Go through their goals, and you will see they are very similar, the opposite are the Liberals.
National socialism is a form of socialism with strong influences of nationalism whereas Nazism is a form of racist, fascist national socialism created by Hitler and the Nazi party.
corpsesarefun wrote:The bubble was started in Weimar Germany, the Nazi's just inflated it.
The nazis' handling of the German economy was bad, they had so many controls and regulation in the economy that the reichsmark could no longer be exchanged for foreign currency.
If it weren't for the war they probably would have collapsed '41/'42 anyway, without all the gold reserves they stole off the jews/poles/french etc.
The Weimar Republic was no worse off than Britain or France really, except having a large agrarian population (about a third of Germans were still rural farmers working on innefficient unprofitable family farms, hence the support for a party that promised massive agricultural subsidies).
thenoobbomb wrote:Most nazis do support hitler/ all of them.
Ever met a Nazi who didnt support hitler?
Most Nazi's are (Neo) Nazi's because of Hitler.
Support or just approve? The Dutch and Russian Nazis I read about just approve.
So I guess you agree now, that Communism and National socialism are very similar after comparing their goals?
National socialism is a form of socialism with strong influences of nationalism whereas Nazism is a form of racist, fascist national socialism created by Hitler and the Nazi party.
You mean you use the term Nazis only for the german incarnation of National socialism 33-45?
4oursword wrote:The Nazi Government did a great deal for Germany.
I guess creating a bubble economy that will burst any moment and needs to be propped up by war to temporarily suppress the upcoming collapse could be considered good by some. The German economy under the regime was not stable nor long term. It created the illusion of prosperity, which, is a pretty poor measure of doing well. Getting trains to run on time doesn't really balance out all the British, French, US, Russian, et al lives that were lost. Even without the Holocaust they would be rightly disliked.
As i previously pointed out, the Nazi economy can only BE stable. Because it is linked to units of work not market speculation.
corpsesarefun wrote:The bubble was started in Weimar Germany, the Nazi's just inflated it.
The nazis' handling of the German economy was bad, they had so many controls and regulation in the economy that the reichsmark could no longer be exchanged for foreign currency.
If it weren't for the war they probably would have collapsed '41/'42 anyway, without all the gold reserves they stole off the jews/poles/french etc.
The Weimar Republic was no worse off than Britain or France really, except having a large agrarian population (about a third of Germans were still rural farmers working on innefficient unprofitable family farms, hence the support for a party that promised massive agricultural subsidies).
The Weimar Republic itself was in a terrible state of affairs for most of it's existence and only improved towards the end due to a series of economic bodge jobs.
Dark Scipio wrote:
National socialism is a form of socialism with strong influences of nationalism whereas Nazism is a form of racist, fascist national socialism created by Hitler and the Nazi party.
You mean you use the term Nazis only for the german incarnation of National socialism 33-45?
4oursword wrote:The Nazi Government did a great deal for Germany.
I guess creating a bubble economy that will burst any moment and needs to be propped up by war to temporarily suppress the upcoming collapse could be considered good by some. The German economy under the regime was not stable nor long term. It created the illusion of prosperity, which, is a pretty poor measure of doing well. Getting trains to run on time doesn't really balance out all the British, French, US, Russian, et al lives that were lost. Even without the Holocaust they would be rightly disliked.
As i previously pointed out, the Nazi economy can only BE stable. Because it is linked to units of work not market speculation.
What? No. They had to import almost all of their steel and a lot of coal from other countries, to do that you need foreign reserves.
During the war they stole foreign reserves from other countries but they still needed massive amounts of men producing goods to be sold overseas in order to pay for those imports.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thenoobbomb wrote:On the subject of what Nazi's did, they got the economy a LOT better, less inflation, more people working.
I can't be bothered to fully rebuke this, but every point you've made is completely false.
corpsesarefun wrote:The bubble was started in Weimar Germany, the Nazi's just inflated it.
The nazis' handling of the German economy was bad, they had so many controls and regulation in the economy that the reichsmark could no longer be exchanged for foreign currency.
If it weren't for the war they probably would have collapsed '41/'42 anyway, without all the gold reserves they stole off the jews/poles/french etc.
The Weimar Republic was no worse off than Britain or France really, except having a large agrarian population (about a third of Germans were still rural farmers working on innefficient unprofitable family farms, hence the support for a party that promised massive agricultural subsidies).
The Weimar Republic itself was in a terrible state of affairs for most of it's existence and only improved towards the end due to a series of economic bodge jobs.
Dark Scipio wrote:
National socialism is a form of socialism with strong influences of nationalism whereas Nazism is a form of racist, fascist national socialism created by Hitler and the Nazi party.
You mean you use the term Nazis only for the german incarnation of National socialism 33-45?
Yes, exactly.
And where are you getting this? I would argue that you're using the term National Socialism incorrectly, or in any case, a bit loosely. Nazi is simply a shortened name for national socialism in German, and when most people hear the term "national socialism," in English or in German, I'm pretty sure Nazis are the first thing that comes to mind (assuming they know what national socialism means). I get that you're not saying Nazism is good, but whatever it is you're unopposed to, there's got to be a better name for it than national socialism. If you're saying things like Nazism is bad and national Socialism is okay, well, there's got to be a better term for what you're actually talking about.
Hordini are you from Germany by any chance? Most Germans I've spoken to use Nazi to mean any national socialism whereas in Britain and presumably America Nazism specifically means the strain of national socialism that Hitler adhered to whereas national socialism is exactly what it says on the tin.
You have to be kidding me, also the 'good' you speak off is false. While some argue the economic return was a good thing, it involved removing other people from their jobs, openly denying certain members of society a place, that's just one example of the 'good' (Lies) you speak off.
I think the mods should close this thread before it bursts into a war zone.
Melissia wrote:Here in the US I'd be called left wing and liberal and probably labeled a socialist (which I am).
Fixed.
Nothing wrong with being who and what you are.
I am not going to join in the conversation about the pros and cons of communisms and socialisms.
However, I am consistently suprised that people have still not learned this one simple global political fact. USA Left = Europe Right
Europe Left = USA Extreme Far Left
corpsesarefun wrote:Hordini are you from Germany by any chance? Most Germans I've spoken to use Nazi to mean any national socialism whereas in Britain and presumably America Nazism specifically means the strain of national socialism that Hitler adhered to whereas national socialism is exactly what it says on the tin.
To be honest, I found no source (in that short time) backing your claim. So far I only read the opposite. Its just that the National Socialism in germany 33-45 could not only be described as such. I mean no political ideology can describe the whole state.
Hitler actually said the Nazi Party was neither left nor right wing and viciously attacked both, for the record.
From Mein Kampf:
Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors [...] But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Fixed.
No, and also shut up and don't lie about what I believe.
Socialism revolves around the government owning the means of production/distribution/exchange. I specifically stated I don't agree with that.
corpsesarefun wrote:Hordini are you from Germany by any chance? Most Germans I've spoken to use Nazi to mean any national socialism whereas in Britain and presumably America Nazism specifically means the strain of national socialism that Hitler adhered to whereas national socialism is exactly what it says on the tin.
To be honest, I found no source (in that short time) backing your claim. So far I only read the opposite. Its just that the National Socialism in germany 33-45 could not only be described as such. I mean no political ideology can describe the whole state.
I'm not sure what you mean, are you saying that National Socialism in Germany between 33 and 45 couldn't accurately be described as National Socialism? If so that's pretty much why we use the word Nazism to describe that specific strain of National Socialism.
corpsesarefun wrote:Then why are you surprised that people hate the Nazi party?
This is why I never really talk about my political beleifs. Haters gon' hate.
Here's the thing. People aren't really talking about whether or not there are good reasons to hate national socialism (There are, racism is one, but hyper-nationalism is another. Their economic strategy wasn't necessarily pretty either.), they're talking about you being surprised that people hate national socialists. Regardless of anything else, there was a point in history when national socialists killed a whole bunch of people for reasons that many consider to be illegitimate, and essentially instigated World War II.
Being surprised that a whole bunch of people in the West hate Nazis is like being surprised that a whole bunch of Americans hate Communists.
corpsesarefun wrote:Hordini are you from Germany by any chance? Most Germans I've spoken to use Nazi to mean any national socialism whereas in Britain and presumably America Nazism specifically means the strain of national socialism that Hitler adhered to whereas national socialism is exactly what it says on the tin.
No, I'm American but I speak German and live in a German-speaking country so that might be coloring my views a bit. I'm not sure I'd agree that in the US people would differentiate between Nazism and National Socialism though. I think most people are familiar with Nazism. Quite a few probably wouldn't recognize the term national socialism, and I doubt those that did would draw much difference between the two.
So to be clear, by saying that national socialism is exactly what it means on the tin, are you basically just talking about left-wing nationalism?
Hordini wrote:I think most people are familiar with Nazism. Quite a few probably wouldn't recognize the term national socialism, and I doubt those that did would draw much difference between the two.
That's exactly the point.
To most people in the US, national socialism would make them think "so like socialist Europe?"
While nazi party makes them think "Sieg heil! Heil Hitler!", the holocaust, and WWII. and etc.
I agree more people are familiar with Nazism and that relatively few are aware of what National Socialism is, you're also right in saying that I mean left-wing Nationalism.
corpsesarefun wrote:If so that's pretty much why we use the word Nazism to describe that specific strain of National Socialism.
While there may be national socialist parties that are composed socialists and nationalists, and based on socialism and nationalism, I don't know of any major ones (or any, for that matter), or even any major political theorist who espoused such a doctrine without also being what you're differentiating as a Nazi.
National socialism is basically just the long form of Nazi.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:Yes but communist ideology itself doesn't generally feature race or institutionalised mass homicide, it tends to be much more about "the workers uniting" and "all men being equal" and such airy crap.
Nazism is by default racist though.
And yet Nazism is considered far more abhorrent than Communism... I ain't even gonna go into Zionistic Conspiracies.
Wait, you're also surprised that an ideology that is necessarily racist is hated more than one that isn't?
You seem like someone who isn't especially worldly.
Dogma: So all of them espouse essentially reducing women back to the level of chattel, mass murder of homosexuals, eugenics and hatred of non-majority races, and so on and so forth?
Hordini wrote:I think most people are familiar with Nazism. Quite a few probably wouldn't recognize the term national socialism, and I doubt those that did would draw much difference between the two.
That's exactly the point.
To most people in the US, national socialism would make them think "so like socialist Europe?"
While nazi party makes them think "Sieg heil! Heil Hitler!", the holocaust, and WWII. and etc.
Yes, I agree with you that most people would think that. Most people would be completely wrong about the first part though
corpsesarefun wrote:I agree more people are familiar with Nazism and that relatively few are aware of what National Socialism is, you're also right in saying that I mean left-wing Nationalism.
It might be better to use the term left-wing nationalism then. Then people who don't know what national socialism is won't think you're talking about "socialist Europe," and people who do know what it is won't think you're talking about the Nazis. In any case, National Socialism is a very loaded term and I would be pretty careful in its use. It's not the term you want to describe non-Nazi left-wing nationalism.
Melissia wrote:Dogma: So all of them espouse essentially reducing women back to the level of chattel, mass murder of homosexuals, eugenics and hatred of non-majority races, and so on and so forth?
If we're talking run of the mill partisans, probably not. Just as your average Democrat doesn't necessarily support everything Democrats make part of their platform, not all Nazis have a fervent hatred of Jews.
However, antisemitism is a component in all the authored works of theorists that call themselves national socialists, and it was a component of that body of work well before Hitler came along.
Melissia wrote:Dogma: So all of them espouse essentially reducing women back to the level of chattel, mass murder of homosexuals, eugenics and hatred of non-majority races, and so on and so forth?
If we're talking run of the mill partisans, probably not. Just as your average Democrat doesn't necessarily support everything Democrats make part of their platform, not all Nazis have a fervent hatred of Jews.
However, antisemitism is a component in all the authored works of theorists that call themselves national socialists, and it was a component of that body of work well before Hitler came along.
corpsesarefun wrote:I would still distinguish between pre-Hitler National Socialists and post-Hitler Nazi's.
Okay, you're really kind of splitting hairs there though, in terms of ideology. And you could say post-Hitler National Socialists and still be talking about the same thing as post-Hitler Nazis.
I'm curious to know how you think they were that different before Hitler, or what Hitler did to change the ideology of national socialism.
Before Hitler pretty much every National Socialist had his own flavour of National Socialism, After Hitler pretty much all National Socialism was Nazism and followed Hitler's beliefs.
If someone was to identify as a Nazi today it's exceedingly likely that they follow the the ideology of Hitler rather than use the term as shorthand for general national socialism.
Honestly though I'm splitting hairs, I was initially trying to work out what the guy defending the Nazi's meant.
corpsesarefun wrote:Before Hitler pretty much every National Socialist had his own flavour of National Socialism, After Hitler pretty much all National Socialism was Nazism and followed Hitler's beliefs.
If someone was to identify as a Nazi today it's exceedingly likely that they follow the the ideology of Hitler rather than use the term as shorthand for general national socialism.
Honestly though I'm splitting hairs, I was initially trying to work out what the guy defending the Nazi's meant.
Okay. I think I get what you're saying, I just don't think it warrants as much differentiation as you seemed to be proposing before, but like you said: splitting hairs.
Although I'm pretty sure that the guy who's defending the Nazis doesn't even know what he means himself.
Melissia wrote:Hitler actually said the Nazi Party was neither left nor right wing and viciously attacked both, for the record.
From Mein Kampf:
Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors
[...]
But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms.
Every "new" movement sneers on both the left and the right, it's how they present themselves as being so new and original. Nazism wouldn't really have worked if Hitler had venerated Von Hindenburg.
A cursary examination of their economic and political policy shows an obvious right-wing social policy (shouldn't have to say that, really) and a quasi-corporate economic policy.
They were in politics at a time when Trade Unionism was strong in Germany, particularly around the Rheinland and large non-Bavarian cities. The Nazis were socialistic in name only, in order to try to incite the industrial working class (they were by and large unsuccessful).
Basically they were entirely right-wing regardless of your definition.
Hordini wrote:
Although I'm pretty sure that the guy who's defending the Nazis doesn't even know what he means himself.
Just like Hitler.
Truly, he is an authentic Nazi.
Hah, that's probably the best description of Hitler's contribution to national socialism in this thread so far. The amount of hypocrisy in both the theory and implementation of national socialist policies during the Third Reich is absolutely staggering. That's the problem with the idea some people present that National Socialism was simply whatever Hitler said or whatever policies that were implemented while he was in power: that could mean just about anything.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:The NSDPA were hardly socialists... They just had it in their name.
Branding any socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, completely and utterly. The NSDPA and national-socialism are completely different.
No one is saying the Nazis were socialists. I'm just saying they were National Socialists, which is not the same thing. I agree that calling a socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, because a socialist with nationalist tendencies is not a National Socialist. National Socialism and NSDAP are not completely different. They're the same thing. I'm not trying to bust your balls, but your information is completely wrong.
If you're going to make ridiculous claims about the Nazi party, at least learn a bit about what it actually was first. If you'd done that already, maybe you wouldn't be tossing off about how much "good" they did.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Branding any socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, completely and utterly. The NSDPA and national-socialism are completely different.
A socialist with nationalist tendencies is a nationalist, and a socialist, not a national socialist.
Not in common parlance anyway, or really even any academic parlance.
You are, however, correct that national socialism is distinct from the Nazi Party, as the Nazi Party is a political party and not a political ideology. They were, however, the most successful national socialist political party.
dogma wrote:
You are, however, correct that national socialism is distinct from the Nazi Party, as the Nazi Party is a political party and not a political ideology.
You're right about this, dogma. Perhaps I should clarify my above post to say rather, that the NSDAP is the party of National Socialism, instead of them being synonymous, which isn't technically true for the reasons you've stated.
I think a lot of Americans don't really come from countries where segments of the political elite have had socialism as a guiding ideology.
Look back at the history of the labour party and you'll see plenty of people who'd as soon toast the union down the miner's welfare as they would pick up a Lee Enfield and fight for queen and country.
corpsesarefun wrote:Before Hitler pretty much every National Socialist had his own flavour of National Socialism, After Hitler pretty much all National Socialism was Nazism and followed Hitler's beliefs.
Well, in Nazi Germany.
Many American Nazis lionize Hitler, but their rhetoric, and espoused beliefs, are very different. Their usage of "Aryan", for example, is basically consistent with "White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant." rather than "Germanic." The treat him as a guy that had a lot of good fundamental ideas (Basically, that national socialism is cool), but don't necessarily emulate him.
That isn't to say that Hitler had a huge influence on national socialism, because he did, its just to say isn't definitive of it.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:The NSDPA were hardly socialists... They just had it in their name.
Branding any socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, completely and utterly. The NSDPA and national-socialism are completely different.
No one is saying the Nazis were socialists. I'm just saying they were National Socialists, which is not the same thing. I agree that calling a socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, because a socialist with nationalist tendencies is not a National Socialist. National Socialism and NSDAP are not completely different. They're the same thing. I'm not trying to bust your balls, but your information is completely wrong.
If you're going to make ridiculous claims about the Nazi party, at least learn a bit about what it actually was first. If you'd done that already, maybe you wouldn't be tossing off about how much "good" they did.
Other than the holocaust, what wrong did they do?
They wanted to overthrow the rules set about in the unfair Treaty Of Versailles and liberate their people. They did. The re-taking of Alsas-Lorraine, the Ruhr industrial zone, the Rhineland, the Polish Corridor, North Czechoslovakia etc WERE ALL taken from them and had a lot of Germans in that were forced to live under foreign rule. The unification with Austria. Retaking their African Colonies.
Truth is, bro, the West feared the Third Reich. They didn't want them to have such power, that is why WE declared war on THEM. Remember that.
People claim we declared it because of a treaty with Poland. We had the same treaty with the Czechs... Why didn't we declare war then? Russia also invaded Poland... Why didn't we declare war on them?
If you want to go into conspiracies, I could mention the disputes Hitler had with Illuminate members and the Black Pope, I could mention the history of the Aryan race, I could mention Neue Schwabenland and Shangri La. But I'm not gonna, none of you seem to want to know the truth and are happy eating up all the anti-Nazi propaganda spread by the Zionist states we all live in.
Joey wrote:I think a lot of Americans don't really come from countries where segments of the political elite have had socialism as a guiding ideology.
Actually, in the early 20th century socialism had a massive influence on American local politics. Lots of cities had socialist mayors, and many states had contingents of socialists within their legislatures.
Indeed, up until the 70's, you would still find plenty of socialist (Rebranded "progressive" thanks to the Red Scare.) mayors in middle America.
Another good example is Minnesota's Democratic Farmer-Labor Party, which is based on a union between the national Democratic Party and the Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:The NSDPA were hardly socialists... They just had it in their name.
Branding any socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, completely and utterly. The NSDPA and national-socialism are completely different.
No one is saying the Nazis were socialists. I'm just saying they were National Socialists, which is not the same thing. I agree that calling a socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, because a socialist with nationalist tendencies is not a National Socialist. National Socialism and NSDAP are not completely different. They're the same thing. I'm not trying to bust your balls, but your information is completely wrong.
If you're going to make ridiculous claims about the Nazi party, at least learn a bit about what it actually was first. If you'd done that already, maybe you wouldn't be tossing off about how much "good" they did.
Other than the holocaust, what wrong did they do?
They wanted to overthrow the rules set about in the unfair Treaty Of Versailles and liberate their people. They did. The re-taking of Alsas-Lorraine, the Ruhr industrial zone, the Rhineland, the Polish Corridor, North Czechoslovakia etc WERE ALL taken from them and had a lot of Germans in that were forced to live under foreign rule. The unification with Austria. Retaking their African Colonies.
Truth is, bro, the West feared the Third Reich. They didn't want them to have such power, that is why WE declared war on THEM. Remember that.
People claim we declared it because of a treaty with Poland. We had the same treaty with the Czechs... Why didn't we declare war then? Russia also invaded Poland... Why didn't we declare war on them?
If you want to go into conspiracies, I could mention the disputes Hitler had with Illuminate members and the Black Pope, I could mention the history of the Aryan race, I could mention Neue Schwabenland and Shangri La. But I'm not gonna, none of you seem to want to know the truth and are happy eating up all the anti-Nazi propaganda spread by the Zionist states we all live in.
Do you have any understanding at all of the actual politics of the age?
1)It was well known that Hitler intended to take over eastern europe, which the western democracies wanted to stop
2)After the war the Western leaders feared the Soviet Union greatly. Nothing ever happened because the USA was too big for the soviets to go toe-to-toe with, and the Soviets weren't mad like Hitler
German public anger at the treaty of Versais is largely apolitical and has nothing to do with the racial politics of the nazi regime.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Joey wrote:I think a lot of Americans don't really come from countries where segments of the political elite have had socialism as a guiding ideology.
Actually, in the early 20th century socialism had a massive influence on American local politics. Lots of cities had socialist mayors, and many states had contingents of socialists within their legislatures.
Indeed, up until the 70's, you would still find plenty of socialist (Rebranded "progressive" thanks to the Red Scare.) mayors in middle America.
Another good example is Minnesota's Democratic Farmer-Labor Party, which is based on a union between the national Democratic Party and the Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota.
At one time about a third to half of our lower house would describe themselves as socialist, we had several heads of government who were socialists and virtually all labour cabinet posts occupied by socialists.
This is the case for many European countries, in America it was confined to industrial areas, but America being a much more rural country than Europe was less influenced by the cultural influence of these socialistic tendancies.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:The NSDPA were hardly socialists... They just had it in their name.
Branding any socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, completely and utterly. The NSDPA and national-socialism are completely different.
No one is saying the Nazis were socialists. I'm just saying they were National Socialists, which is not the same thing. I agree that calling a socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, because a socialist with nationalist tendencies is not a National Socialist. National Socialism and NSDAP are not completely different. They're the same thing. I'm not trying to bust your balls, but your information is completely wrong.
If you're going to make ridiculous claims about the Nazi party, at least learn a bit about what it actually was first. If you'd done that already, maybe you wouldn't be tossing off about how much "good" they did.
Other than the holocaust, what wrong did they do?
They wanted to overthrow the rules set about in the unfair Treaty Of Versailles and liberate their people. They did. The re-taking of Alsas-Lorraine, the Ruhr industrial zone, the Rhineland, the Polish Corridor, North Czechoslovakia etc WERE ALL taken from them and had a lot of Germans in that were forced to live under foreign rule. The unification with Austria. Retaking their African Colonies.
Truth is, bro, the West feared the Third Reich. They didn't want them to have such power, that is why WE declared war on THEM. Remember that.
People claim we declared it because of a treaty with Poland. We had the same treaty with the Czechs... Why didn't we declare war then? Russia also invaded Poland... Why didn't we declare war on them?
If you want to go into conspiracies, I could mention the disputes Hitler had with Illuminate members and the Black Pope, I could mention the history of the Aryan race, I could mention Neue Schwabenland and Shangri La. But I'm not gonna, none of you seem to want to know the truth and are happy eating up all the anti-Nazi propaganda spread by the Zionist states we all live in.
Do you have any understanding at all of the actual politics of the age?
1)It was well known that Hitler intended to take over eastern europe, which the western democracies wanted to stop
2)After the war the Western leaders feared the Soviet Union greatly. Nothing ever happened because the USA was too big for the soviets to go toe-to-toe with, and the Soviets weren't mad like Hitler
German public anger at the treaty of Versais is largely apolitical and has nothing to do with the racial politics of the nazi regime.
The actual deal was he wanted to split the world in half with Britain. Germany gets mainland Europe and we get the rest. He wanted an Empire and certain places were of... certain value to Hitler. Churchill stopped it using blackmail alone. Can't remember his name, but a German General flew over to Scotland (Weiss I think) with the documents of the deal. He was killed. The man in prison is an imposter, HIS WIFE EVEN SAYS SO.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Other than the holocaust, what wrong did they do?
Declare war on the Western world?
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
They wanted to overthrow the rules set about in the unfair Treaty Of Versailles and liberate their people. They did. The re-taking of Alsas-Lorraine, the Ruhr industrial zone, the Rhineland, the Polish Corridor, North Czechoslovakia etc WERE ALL taken from them and had a lot of Germans in that were forced to live under foreign rule. The unification with Austria. Retaking their African Colonies.
It is infinitely more complicated than that, especially in the case of Alsace-Lorraine, Poland, and Czechoslovakia.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Truth is, bro, the West feared the Third Reich.
Probably because, you know, they took a bunch of hostile actions in contravention to a treaty signed by a German state.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
People claim we declared it because of a treaty with Poland. We had the same treaty with the Czechs... Why didn't we declare war then? Russia also invaded Poland... Why didn't we declare war on them?
Probably because war was extremely unpopular, politically, at the time.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
But I'm not gonna, none of you seem to want to know the truth and are happy eating up all the anti-Nazi propaganda spread by the Zionist states we all live in.
I've not encountered a real Nazi in a long time, thank you for reminding how much fun they are.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:The NSDPA were hardly socialists... They just had it in their name.
Branding any socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, completely and utterly. The NSDPA and national-socialism are completely different.
No one is saying the Nazis were socialists. I'm just saying they were National Socialists, which is not the same thing. I agree that calling a socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, because a socialist with nationalist tendencies is not a National Socialist. National Socialism and NSDAP are not completely different. They're the same thing. I'm not trying to bust your balls, but your information is completely wrong.
If you're going to make ridiculous claims about the Nazi party, at least learn a bit about what it actually was first. If you'd done that already, maybe you wouldn't be tossing off about how much "good" they did.
Other than the holocaust, what wrong did they do?
They wanted to overthrow the rules set about in the unfair Treaty Of Versailles and liberate their people. They did. The re-taking of Alsas-Lorraine, the Ruhr industrial zone, the Rhineland, the Polish Corridor, North Czechoslovakia etc WERE ALL taken from them and had a lot of Germans in that were forced to live under foreign rule. The unification with Austria. Retaking their African Colonies.
Truth is, bro, the West feared the Third Reich. They didn't want them to have such power, that is why WE declared war on THEM. Remember that.
People claim we declared it because of a treaty with Poland. We had the same treaty with the Czechs... Why didn't we declare war then? Russia also invaded Poland... Why didn't we declare war on them?
If you want to go into conspiracies, I could mention the disputes Hitler had with Illuminate members and the Black Pope, I could mention the history of the Aryan race, I could mention Neue Schwabenland and Shangri La. But I'm not gonna, none of you seem to want to know the truth and are happy eating up all the anti-Nazi propaganda spread by the Zionist states we all live in.
As if the Holocaust wasn't bad enough on its own? Any time you have to start a sentence with "Other than the Holocaust...." you're probably not heading in a good direction. And questionable decision making on the part of the allies doesn't magically absolve the Nazis from all other wrongdoing "other than the Holocaust."
But you're right though. Other than the Holocaust, oppressing and killing Jews, Roma, Slavs, homosexuals, political dissidents, and tons of others, brainwashing their own youth and pressing them into military service, invading the Soviet Union and prosecuting campaigns in the east that killed millions of soldiers and civilians, and countless other crimes against humanity and war crimes, they didn't do anything wrong.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Other than the holocaust, what wrong did they do?
Declare war on the Western world?
No declaration of war was filed by Germany. We filed it against them. All they wanted was their empire of old that was taken from them over the years, and certain other places that were assests to Hitler and his plans for his people.
On the subjects of War Crimes, I think you will find that we have done far worse. Both today and back then.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
No declaration of war was filed by Germany. We filed it against them.
As if filing a declaration of war were the only means to fulfill the necessary prerequisites to be said to "declare war".
They violated an international accord by violent means, even being sent diplomatic signals to effect of "If you do this, we will declare war on you."
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
All they wanted was their empire of old that was taken from them over the years, and certain other places that were assests to Hitler and his plans for his people.
And I'm sure the French wanted Alsace-Lorraine after having it taken from them in the 1870s, and I'm also sure that after they were on the winning side of WWI they took it back.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote:
As if the Holocaust wasn't bad enough on its own? Any time you have to start a sentence with "Other than the Holocaust...." you're probably not heading in a good direction. And questionable decision making on the part of the allies doesn't magically absolve the Nazis from all other wrongdoing "other than the Holocaust."
Particularly when "Jews are subhuman monsters." is a key feature of national socialism, and Hitler's work in particular.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Other than the holocaust, what wrong did they do?
Declare war on the Western world?
No declaration of war was filed by Germany. We filed it against them. All they wanted was their empire of old that was taken from them over the years, and certain other places that were assests to Hitler and his plans for his people.
"Certain other places," as in all of Eastern Europe? Yeah, that's cool...
And not that who declared war on who first actually matters, since Germany was invading countries like crazy, but Germany declared war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:Other than the holocaust, what wrong did they do?
Isn't the Holocaust enough?
DeadlySquirrel wrote:If you want to go into conspiracies, I could mention the disputes Hitler had with Illuminate members and the Black Pope, I could mention the history of the Aryan race, I could mention Neue Schwabenland and Shangri La. But I'm not gonna, none of you seem to want to know the truth and are happy eating up all the anti-Nazi propaganda spread by the Zionist states we all live in.
I want to know the truth.
Expose the lies and lead us into the golden light of understanding.
Hordini wrote:
And not that who declared war on who first actually matters, since Germany was invading countries like crazy, but Germany declared war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor.
I often think of FDR imitating Mr. Burns when that happened.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:I meant further afield like the South Pole and parts of Asia, India in particular.
Well, you left out all of Eastern Europe then, most of which was never part of any previous German empire. The invasion of the Soviet Union was a pretty big deal.
Expose the lies and lead us into the golden light of understanding.
Fine.
Before the Biblical Great flood, there was a great civilisation that spanned across the globe. Today they are known as "Atlantians" but in truth, they were Aryan. Long ago, the planet was visited by Aliens. I do not know what happened next, no one does. (It's what Hitler was looking for, partly) But they interbred with the Primitive Humans, or enhanced their DNA with their own. Perhaps they were stranded and were forced to, to preserve what was left of them. Perhaps they decided to help our planet and thus the universe by seeding sentient life. It matters not. What does matter is those humans who were enhanced did better than everyone else. They were the Aryans. The most advanced and evolved form of human. Hindu Religion and the Swastika are based on the Aryans. The Swastika being a star alignment, at the center of which were where the aliens came from.
With the Alien Technology they created vast cities, conquered the world. Then POW. A glacier cracked and released much water, causing global sea levels rise (the biblical flood found in most religions) wiping out most of the Aryans and their cities. What was left can be found all over the world. The Great pyramid and Sphinx, Shangri La, the City in Antarctica. All these "mysteries" of the ancient world are remnants of a glorious civilisation.
Scattered and lost, the remaining Aryans settled down and forgot most of their past. Focusing more on surviving than recording history. After a few generations, they were but a faded memory.
This is the truth the Zionists do not want you to believe. By thinking of yourself as onto a God, you remove their power.By believe that our history is in the stars and not in the religious texts, you sap their strengths. This is why Nazism is hated the most. For helping the Children Of The Stars learn their identity...
Expose the lies and lead us into the golden light of understanding.
Fine.
Before the Biblical Great flood, there was a great civilisation that spanned across the globe. Today they are known as "Atlantians" but in truth, they were Aryan. Long ago, the planet was visited by Aliens. I do not know what happened next, no one does. (It's what Hitler was looking for, partly) But they interbred with the Primitive Humans, or enhanced their DNA with their own. Perhaps they were stranded and were forced to, to preserve what was left of them. Perhaps they decided to help our planet and thus the universe by seeding sentient life. It matters not. What does matter is those humans who were enhanced did better than everyone else. They were the Aryans. The most advanced and evolved form of human. Hindu Religion and the Swastika are based on the Aryans. The Swastika being a star alignment, at the center of which were where the aliens came from.
With the Alien Technology they created vast cities, conquered the world. Then POW. A glacier cracked and released much water, causing global sea levels rise (the biblical flood found in most religions) wiping out most of the Aryans and their cities. What was left can be found all over the world. The Great pyramid and Sphinx, Shangri La, the City in Antarctica. All these "mysteries" of the ancient world are remnants of a glorious civilisation.
Scattered and lost, the remaining Aryans settled down and forgot most of their past. Focusing more on surviving than recording history. After a few generations, they were but a faded memory.
This is the truth the Zionists do not want you to believe. By thinking of yourself as onto a God, you remove their power.By believe that our history is in the stars and not in the religious texts, you sap their strengths. This is why Nazism is hated the most. For helping the Children Of The Stars learn their identity...
>inb4 flamed.
and Star Wars is a documentary of events that occurred a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away.
Because you believe in something that completely lacks any scientific proof of its existence and, in fact, can be pretty much be as close to disproven as anything can be, and is something absolutely no legitimate historian or scientist believes in?
But of course, it's because those damn Jews have us all tricked, right?
Like I feel like my initial statement is poorly phrased, but I don't think words exist that can express just how insane you really are.
When typing that did you put on your tin foil hat to stop the 'Zionists' from listning to your thoughts or the evil space men from stealing your mind energy?
Hordini wrote:What's the city in Antarctica? I haven't heard about that one. If you have links, that'd be cool.
Will look now.
Basically, many pilots have reported seeing great grassy fields in Antarctica, lush forests and cities.
It's what the SS lead expedition to Neue Schwabenland in, IIRC, 1938 was about. They set up a large submarine base also.
The American Operation Highjump was "a training exercise" involving a whole American fleet including aircraft carriers to Antarctica. They lost a ship or two and a fair few men on a simple training mission, sent to the exact area that was claimed by Germany.
And guys, I genuinely believe this. I do not troll Dakka. I like it here too much.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:The Great pyramid and Sphinx, Shangri La, the City in Antarctica.
Shangri-La isn't a real place.
In fact, I had to look it up, and outside of being referenced a gakload of times by the Insane Clown Posse (lolwut) it appears to be a fictional place in the Himalayas or something from a novel written in 1933.
Hordini wrote:What's the city in Antarctica? I haven't heard about that one. If you have links, that'd be cool.
Will look now.
Basically, many pilots have reported seeing great grassy fields in Antarctica, lush forests and cities.
It's what the SS lead expedition to Neue Schwabenland in, IIRC, 1938 was about. They set up a large submarine base also.
The American Operation Highjump was "a training exercise" involving a whole American fleet including aircraft carriers to Antarctica. They lost a ship or two and a fair few men on a simple training mission, sent to the exact area that was claimed by Germany.
And guys, I genuinely believe this. I do not troll Dakka. I like it here too much.
blood reaper wrote:
Because both are crazy fantasy fictions stories, though Elder scrolls makes more sence than his crazy story.
Nah, there's some book in Morrowind, I think, that discusses how all humans in Cyrodil were descended from ancient race "True Nords" or Atmorans, and that only the current Nords resemble them, but are a poor reflection.
Hordini wrote:What's the city in Antarctica? I haven't heard about that one. If you have links, that'd be cool.
Will look now.
Basically, many pilots have reported seeing great grassy fields in Antarctica, lush forests and cities.
It's what the SS lead expedition to Neue Schwabenland in, IIRC, 1938 was about. They set up a large submarine base also.
The American Operation Highjump was "a training exercise" involving a whole American fleet including aircraft carriers to Antarctica. They lost a ship or two and a fair few men on a simple training mission, sent to the exact area that was claimed by Germany.
And guys, I genuinely believe this. I do not troll Dakka. I like it here too much.
Lies and more lies.
Google it.
I knew this would happen, so lets stay civil so the mods don't shut down the thread...
blood reaper wrote:OK, so he copy and pasted it then made some edits and guess what! You have your own special fairy tale to spread across the interwebz.
It wasn't copy/pasted at all. It is all in my own words, written by me. It's what I genuinely believe.
Again, stay civil. Don't wanna get the thread closed now, do we?
There are a number of modern Shangri-La pseudo-legends that have developed since 1933 in the wake of the novel and the film made from it. The Nazis had an enthusiasm for Shangri-La, where they hoped to find an ancient master race similar to the Nordic race, unspoiled by Buddhism. They sent one expedition to Tibet, led by Ernst Schäfer in 1938.
It reminds me of Anton LaVey referencing al-Hazred's Necronomicon as an authoritative work of Satanic truth, despite the fact that both the Necronomicon and "The Mad Arab al-Hazred" were invented by H.P. Lovecraft as part of his Cthulhu mythos.
Hordini wrote:What's the city in Antarctica? I haven't heard about that one. If you have links, that'd be cool.
Will look now.
Basically, many pilots have reported seeing great grassy fields in Antarctica, lush forests and cities.
It's what the SS lead expedition to Neue Schwabenland in, IIRC, 1938 was about. They set up a large submarine base also.
The American Operation Highjump was "a training exercise" involving a whole American fleet including aircraft carriers to Antarctica. They lost a ship or two and a fair few men on a simple training mission, sent to the exact area that was claimed by Germany.
And guys, I genuinely believe this. I do not troll Dakka. I like it here too much.
Lies and more lies.
Google it.
I knew this would happen, so lets stay civil so the mods don't shut down the thread...
No.
I will not read some pro-Nazi, white supremacist, racial hate lies written by the insane and deluded.
You are a troll or a Nazi, or a Troll Nazi, everything you've stated has been perfectly designed to offend, or you've just ripped off Thundercats.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
blood reaper wrote:OK, so he copy and pasted it then made some edits and guess what! You have your own special fairy tale to spread across the interwebz.
It wasn't copy/pasted at all. It is all in my own words, written by me. It's what I genuinely believe.
Again, stay civil. Don't wanna get the thread closed now, do we?
Really? Cause when something is so well designed to offend its called trolling and flame batting.
There are a number of modern Shangri-La pseudo-legends that have developed since 1933 in the wake of the novel and the film made from it. The Nazis had an enthusiasm for Shangri-La, where they hoped to find an ancient master race similar to the Nordic race, unspoiled by Buddhism. They sent one expedition to Tibet, led by Ernst Schäfer in 1938.
It reminds me of Anton LaVey referencing al-Hazred's Necronomicon as an authoritative work of Satanic truth, despite the fact that both the Necronomicon and "The Mad Arab al-Hazred" were invented by H.P. Lovecraft as part of his Cthulhu mythos.
Shangri-La and Antarctica, as well as a few other places of interest have tunnels to the center of the Earth. It is here that, apparently, the majority of the Aryans sought refuge after the flood. They would remain unspoilt by outside world. That is why these places interested Hitler so much...
There are a number of modern Shangri-La pseudo-legends that have developed since 1933 in the wake of the novel and the film made from it. The Nazis had an enthusiasm for Shangri-La, where they hoped to find an ancient master race similar to the Nordic race, unspoiled by Buddhism. They sent one expedition to Tibet, led by Ernst Schäfer in 1938.
It reminds me of Anton LaVey referencing al-Hazred's Necronomicon as an authoritative work of Satanic truth, despite the fact that both the Necronomicon and "The Mad Arab al-Hazred" were invented by H.P. Lovecraft as part of his Cthulhu mythos.
Shangri-La and Antarctica, as well as a few other places of interest have tunnels to the center of the Earth. It is here that, apparently, the majority of the Aryans sought refuge after the flood. They would remain unspoilt by outside world. That is why these places interested Hitler so much...
How old are you and what is the highest level of formal education you have received, and, if applicable, in what field? I am genuinely curious and promise to remain civil from here on out.
There are a number of modern Shangri-La pseudo-legends that have developed since 1933 in the wake of the novel and the film made from it. The Nazis had an enthusiasm for Shangri-La, where they hoped to find an ancient master race similar to the Nordic race, unspoiled by Buddhism. They sent one expedition to Tibet, led by Ernst Schäfer in 1938.
It reminds me of Anton LaVey referencing al-Hazred's Necronomicon as an authoritative work of Satanic truth, despite the fact that both the Necronomicon and "The Mad Arab al-Hazred" were invented by H.P. Lovecraft as part of his Cthulhu mythos.
Shangri-La and Antarctica, as well as a few other places of interest have tunnels to the center of the Earth. It is here that, apparently, the majority of the Aryans sought refuge after the flood. They would remain unspoilt by outside world. That is why these places interested Hitler so much...
How old are you and what is the highest level of formal education you have received, and, if applicable, in what field?
17. Studying A-Levels. Certified child genius aged 5. Told I could of gone to do A levels when I was 14. University by 16. Declined, because I wanted to grow up normally. I'm studying Chemistry, Biology, Maths and History. Unfortunately I have been forced to drop History due to a severe illness causing me to have ridiculous amount of time of from 6th form. I intend to take it back up when I'm healthy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thread title should be changed to Political Persecution on Dakka...
DeadlySquirrel, I mean this very seriously and I'm not trying to make fun of you, but I really think you have a lot more work to do in the history department. Don't wait either. You can read on your own, even if you're not in classes.
You shouldn't have a problem with having your sincerely-held beliefs interrogated, especially as an avowed member of an ideological grouping that most right-thinking people find completely abhorrent. It should be a matter of routine, frankly.
That is, of course, unless you are secretly aware that your position is indefensible. At the end of the day, we have the right to criticize what you believe - what were you expecting? Praise? I put it to you that our reaction was completely expected on your part and that you just announced yourself as a Nazi for attention.
Albatross wrote:You shouldn't have a problem with having your sincerely-held beliefs interrogated, especially as an avowed member of an ideological grouping that most right-thinking people find completely abhorrent. It should be a matter of routine, frankly.
That is, of course, unless you are secretly aware that your position is indefensible. At the end of the day, we have the right to criticize what you believe - what were you expecting? Praise? I put it to you that our reaction was completely expected on your part and that you just announced yourself as a Nazi for attention.
Well done. You were successful.
The truth stands up to scrutiny. I am more than happy to argue with you all until the end of time. However, I simply fear the topic will get locked...
I expected this to happen, which is why I was highly reluctant to discuss these matters.
And if you do not believe I really am a Nazi, check my youtube channel: xBrutalBenx.
Albatross wrote:You shouldn't have a problem with having your sincerely-held beliefs interrogated, especially as an avowed member of an ideological grouping that most right-thinking people find completely abhorrent. It should be a matter of routine, frankly.
That is, of course, unless you are secretly aware that your position is indefensible. At the end of the day, we have the right to criticize what you believe - what were you expecting? Praise? I put it to you that our reaction was completely expected on your part and that you just announced yourself as a Nazi for attention.
Well done. You were successful.
The truth stands up to scrutiny. I am more than happy to argue with you all until the end of time.
Cool, I'll start with:
You believe in certain things that have no basis in actual recorded history or in factual reality, for example Shangri-La. How do you respond to this?
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
You mean mainstream history...
I find the path less travelled reveals most. Or whatever the hell that quote is.
Why does the number of people that have traveled a path have any bearing on its merit or, in this case, veracity?
In this case, bringing to light the true history of the planet is a path less travelled and at the end is the reward of a better Earth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Albatross wrote:You shouldn't have a problem with having your sincerely-held beliefs interrogated, especially as an avowed member of an ideological grouping that most right-thinking people find completely abhorrent. It should be a matter of routine, frankly.
That is, of course, unless you are secretly aware that your position is indefensible. At the end of the day, we have the right to criticize what you believe - what were you expecting? Praise? I put it to you that our reaction was completely expected on your part and that you just announced yourself as a Nazi for attention.
Well done. You were successful.
The truth stands up to scrutiny. I am more than happy to argue with you all until the end of time.
Cool, I'll start with:
You believe in certain things that have no basis in actual recorded history or in factual reality, for example Shangri-La. How do you respond to this?
A lot of what I believe is recorded as alternate history. Stray documents in old libraries, which occasionally get put on the internet such as the proposed peace terms between Britain and Germany, and the plans to divide the Earth between them...
Shangri La pops up before Lovecraft etc. Ghengis Khan is said to have looked for an ancient city in the mountains, which is said to have been Shangri La.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
You mean mainstream history...
I find the path less travelled reveals most. Or whatever the hell that quote is.
Why does the number of people that have traveled a path have any bearing on its merit or, in this case, veracity?
In this case, bringing to light the true history of the planet is a path less travelled and at the end is the reward of a better Earth.
...and I'm sure that you consider that sentence to be somewhat poetic, but it isn't a substitute for facts. You are free to present those at any time, but until that time all you really have to offer is pseudo-mystical obfuscation. That isn't an argument.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
You mean mainstream history...
I find the path less travelled reveals most. Or whatever the hell that quote is.
Why does the number of people that have traveled a path have any bearing on its merit or, in this case, veracity?
In this case, bringing to light the true history of the planet is a path less travelled and at the end is the reward of a better Earth.
...and I'm sure that you consider that sentence to be somewhat poetic, but it isn't a substitute for facts. You are free to present those at any time, but until that time all you really have to offer is pseudo-mystical obfuscation. That isn't an argument.
The same can be said of all religion.
These documents pop up on certain sites before the Internet Police take them down... If you aren't on the right website at the right time, you will miss it. Rense.com is a good starting point if you want to research...
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
You mean mainstream history...
I find the path less travelled reveals most. Or whatever the hell that quote is.
Why does the number of people that have traveled a path have any bearing on its merit or, in this case, veracity?
In this case, bringing to light the true history of the planet is a path less travelled and at the end is the reward of a better Earth.
...and I'm sure that you consider that sentence to be somewhat poetic, but it isn't a substitute for facts. You are free to present those at any time, but until that time all you really have to offer is pseudo-mystical obfuscation. That isn't an argument.
The same can be said of all religion.
I despise religion. Regardless, you are talking about things which are (or should be) historically or geographically verifiable.
These documents pop up on certain sites before the Internet Police take them down... If you aren't on the right website at the right time, you will miss it. Rense.com is a good starting point if you want to research...
I don't want to research, I want you to substantiate your outlandish claims. Take as long as you need.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
In this case, bringing to light the true history of the planet is a path less travelled and at the end is the reward of a better Earth.
You're missing the point, which is that the truth is not related to the number of people that believe it.
There are a number of modern Shangri-La pseudo-legends that have developed since 1933 in the wake of the novel and the film made from it. The Nazis had an enthusiasm for Shangri-La, where they hoped to find an ancient master race similar to the Nordic race, unspoiled by Buddhism. They sent one expedition to Tibet, led by Ernst Schäfer in 1938.
It reminds me of Anton LaVey referencing al-Hazred's Necronomicon as an authoritative work of Satanic truth, despite the fact that both the Necronomicon and "The Mad Arab al-Hazred" were invented by H.P. Lovecraft as part of his Cthulhu mythos.
Shangri-La and Antarctica, as well as a few other places of interest have tunnels to the center of the Earth. It is here that, apparently, the majority of the Aryans sought refuge after the flood. They would remain unspoilt by outside world. That is why these places interested Hitler so much...
How old are you and what is the highest level of formal education you have received, and, if applicable, in what field?
17. Studying A-Levels. Certified child genius aged 5. Told I could of gone to do A levels when I was 14. University by 16. Declined, because I wanted to grow up normally. I'm studying Chemistry, Biology, Maths and History. Unfortunately I have been forced to drop History due to a severe illness causing me to have ridiculous amount of time of from 6th form. I intend to take it back up when I'm healthy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thread title should be changed to Political Persecution on Dakka...
This is so awesome im going to do me.
Born in Middlesbrough at the age of 7. Mother French prostitute father Belgian dolphin trainer. Told I had big hands. Joined the Royal Marines threw grandmother down stairs for a bet popped neighbours kids football with left handed scissors after landed in pond.
Admiral Byrd wrote this in his journel while on flying over Antarctica prior to Operation Highjump
1000 Hours- We are crossing over the small mountain range and still proceeding northward as best as can be ascertained. Beyond the mountain range is what appears to be a valley with a small river or stream running through the center portion. There should be no green valley below! Something is definitely wrong and abnormal here! We should be over ice and snow! To the portside are great forests growing on the mountain slopes. Our navigation instruments are still spinning, the gyroscope is oscillating back and forth!
1005 Hours- I alter altitude to 1400 feet and execute a sharp left turn to better examine the valley below. It is green with either moss or a type of tight knit grass. The light here seems different. I cannot see the Sun anymore. We make another left turn and we spot what seems to be a large animal of some kind below us. It appears to be an elephant! NO!!! It looks more like a mammoth! This is incredible! Yet, there it is! Decrease altitude to 1000 feet and take binoculars to better examine the animal. It is confirmed -it is definitely a mammoth-like animal! Report this to base camp.
1030 Hours- Encountering more rolling green hills now. The external temperature indicator reads 74 degrees Fahrenheit! Continuing on our heading now. Navigation instruments seem normal now. I am puzzled over their actions. Attempt to contact base camp. Radio is not functioning!
1130 Hours- Countryside below is more level and normal (if I may use that word). Ahead we spot what seems to be a city!!!! This is impossible! Aircraft seems light and oddly buoyant. The controls refuse to respond!! My GOD!!! Off our port and starboard wings are a strange type of aircraft. They are closing rapidly alongside! They are disc-shaped and have a radiant quality to them. They are close enough now to see the markings on them. It is a type of Swastika!!! This is fantastic. Where are we! What has happened. I tug at the controls again. They will not respond!!!! We are caught in an invisible vice grip of some type!
1135 Hours- Our radio crackles and a voice comes through in English with what perhaps is a slight Nordic or Germanic accent! The message is: 'Welcome, Admiral, to our domain. We shall land you in exactly seven minutes! Relax, Admiral, you are in good hands.' I note the engines of our plane have stopped running! The aircraft is under some strange control and is now turning itself. The controls are useless.
Automatically Appended Next Post: German Navy Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz 1943: “The German submarine fleet is proud of having built for the Führer in another part of the world a Shangri-La on land, an impregnable fortress.”
DeadlySquirrel wrote:Other than the holocaust, what wrong did they do?
Do I really have to repeat myself again?
Quite a damned few of the fundamental, core political beliefs of the party were what I would define as wrong and morally abhorrent, and they did everything they could to push those beliefs in to power. Even compared to the standards of the time they were misogynistic, homophobic, racist, and antisemite-- and all of this as a political stance, as a part of the official beliefs of the party and enforced in law.
The party is rightfully considered a stain on Germany's honor and history by much of the western world.
2 - Zionist conspiracy or not, the Holocaust and WW2 are the defining elements of the Nazi party. Mass murder > balanced budget.
3 - Mr Squirrel 's stories of Antarctic oasis and interstellar humans are just as silly as any tales from the Bible, we don't have three pages of "Lol! Idiot!" whenever someone outs themselves as a christian.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
You mean mainstream history...
I find the path less travelled reveals most. Or whatever the hell that quote is.
Why does the number of people that have traveled a path have any bearing on its merit or, in this case, veracity?
In this case, bringing to light the true history of the planet is a path less travelled and at the end is the reward of a better Earth.
...and I'm sure that you consider that sentence to be somewhat poetic, but it isn't a substitute for facts. You are free to present those at any time, but until that time all you really have to offer is pseudo-mystical obfuscation. That isn't an argument.
The same can be said of all religion.
These documents pop up on certain sites before the Internet Police take them down... If you aren't on the right website at the right time, you will miss it. Rense.com is a good starting point if you want to research...
You mean CrazyNaziSpaceConspiricy+cookies=profit.com?
It may intrest you that not all believe any Religon is truthful and some believe all Religons are wrong, trying to move a disscusion to point at a more global thing to explain a ridiculous thing that borrows from other fantasy and scifi stories is in no way a good example of history.
Also, just one thing.....
Hitler was an insane, self centred, manipulative, malignant person that saw a good opertunity in the darkest of times to seize power, after murdering his allies like dogs he them set to spilling blood in his delusional lust for a 'Pure Breed' race, envolving a large amount of bloody mass murder. It would quite hard and pointless to fill a page with wildly known, backed up facts. Not some crazy fantasy, if you want to write fiction, move your post to that section, it will make a nice story.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:The NSDPA were hardly socialists... They just had it in their name.
Branding any socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, completely and utterly. The NSDPA and national-socialism are completely different.
Of course they were socialists. Thats why the Communist-East Germany could use so much of the third Reich.
Have you seen what the NSDAP did and wanted? (No market, State control over every personal decision, jobs state driven, no free trade, high taxes, workers (and soldiers) as the most important class...)
thenoobbomb wrote:Religion is like opium for the people... ~Lenin.
Best quote ever.
Its from Marx not Lenin.
And it was only true before television was created.
*cough*
NSDAP were Facists. So, a facist does not agree with equility. Therefore, its not communistic. And socialism is a lighter version of communism.
thenoobbomb wrote:*cough*
NSDAP were Facists. So, a facist does not agree with equility. Therefore, its not communistic. And socialism is a lighter version of communism.
No Communism is the radical form of Socialism not the other way around. The NSDAP were a Facist and Socialist party.
Castiel wrote: Scotland will not be better on its own.
What would you say if Hitler arose from the grave and said that Scotland staying with England was a good thing?
And what if Chuck Norris was also saying that staying together was a good idea? What are you trying to get at? That is a completely random and nonsensical point.
Come back to me with your thoughts on those, or not at all.
They're basically just conspiracy theorist rants. The first one doesn't cite any sources at all, relying INSTEAD on EXCESSIVE CAPITALISATION of WORDS and PHRASES. The second one cites questionable or redundant sources. 'Questionable' in that some of them are from people such as renowned holocaust-denier David Irving, and 'redundant' in that they deal with things that we already know, or are already widely accepted - i.e. British strategic bombing campaigns targeting civilians as a matter of course. We know that already. That's not controversial, and is accepted by British historians and people as not being amongst our proudest moments. That doesn't mean there's a city in Antarctica with a tunnel going down to the centre of the earth, does it?
So these tunnels to the centre of the earth, why were they made?
I mean if you live on some rock floating on vast quantities of molten rock and metal boring a hole down INTO the molten rock sounds like a pretty stupid idea.
And a lot of Scientists believe the Earth is hollow, but because they do not conform they receive "the black spot" so none of their findings get published. Much like those who have disproved global warming.
And a lot of Scientists believe the Earth is hollow, but because they do not conform they receive "the black spot" so none of their findings get published. Much like those who have disproved global warming.
Your a Nazi apologist, ancient alien believer, Aryan supremacist, hollow earther, global warming denier AND general conspiracy theorist?
And a lot of Scientists believe the Earth is hollow, but because they do not conform they receive "the black spot" so none of their findings get published. Much like those who have disproved global warming.
Your a Nazi apologist, ancient alien believer, Aryan supremacist, hollow earther, global warming denier AND general conspiracy theorist?
Okay, I don't have time to sort this right now, so I'm going to lock
it up and get back to it later. We have personal attacks, potential
trolling and straying off topic.
), and I'm not sure why. I'm leaning towards being pro-torture, although I don't think they use it for things that are actually important.
