Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Guitardian wrote:Stalin may have killed more, but his paranoia motivation was political. Hitlers was just plainly nuts.

To play devils's-advocate for a second, ever been to Flatbush, Queens, NYC anyone? place that is full of schoolbusses full of wierd hebrew script on the side, little hsssidic kids with ringlet hair, women who aren't allowed to speak without their husband, and gangs of Rabi following you down the street like a mafia hit about to happen... because you obviously aren't one of them... then they rip you off for a job you did for them and probably go home and laugh with each other about the stupid outside they took advantage of?

hmmm.. I don't hate most Jews, but those people are clearly self-serving and insular community who hates contact with everyone else unless they can make a buck off of them.

Maybe that is what Hitler saw and wanted to stop, eradicate, get rid of. Hey Jesus turned over the tables of Jewish moneylenders in a temper tantrum outrage and he was made a hero for it..

Hmmmm... Your example is pretty much what not a few Germans interwar and before 'thought' they saw happening. The Nazis were not the only party of the 20's and 30's to get on the anti semetic band wagon.

Whilst German tactics are taught at war colleges, Nazi propaganda techniques are taught at University and College, the politics and philosophy and psychology behind the Nazi rise to power are studied I do not think that Hitler as an individual will be revered.

Hitlers legacy should still makes us ask questions of ourselves.

'..people change under certain conditions. people asked me "What did you learn?' (in Sobibor) and I think I'm only sure of one thing - nobody knows themselves. The nice person on the street, you ask him "Where is North Street?" and he goes with you half a block and shows you, and is nice and kind. That same person in a different situation could be the worst sadist. Nobody knows themselves. All off us could be good people or bad people in these situations. Sometimes, when somebody is really nice to me, I find myself asking, "how will he be in Sobibor?"...

The above quote is from Toivi Blatt. In 1943 he was sent to Sobibor, betrayed to the German Army and Police by his best friend (He told Toivi to hide in a barn).
On arrival his parents and 10 year old brother died in the gas chambers which lay behind a facade of a nice train station complete with potted flowers.
A uniquely Nazi solution to the problem of controlling victims about to be sent to their deaths, it eased the workload and mental stress of the camp guards.

Stormrider wrote:As for the dismissal of Hitler as a crackpot, his ideas about social policy were (barring genocide) pretty widespread at the time.

Not really, no. Anti-semitism was fairly common, but it was a long way short of industrialised death camps.

wizard12 wrote:Hitler - brought Germany out of the worst ressession seen in the world, managed to make a large sanding millitary force during this time and managed to unite Fractured Germany. He would have won if he haddn't have waited and swiftly invaded England or had (IMO) joined with spain. But then again, the WW wouldn't have started if we'd taken a stand in the Rhineland, not settled for appessment and not been so harsh in the treaty of Versailles.

The seeds of German economic recovery were already established. Hitler would not have . Allying with Spain would have achieved little, the civil war had been brutal and they had little to offer, certainly much less than the Italians, Hungarians, Austrians and other allies. A swift invasion of England was impossible, as he had no landing craft and there was the Royal Navy in the way. There was little the UK could have done to stop the taking of the Rhineland, their force projection was negligible, and appeasement was in turn a product of this. Note that while Chamberlain returned declaring peace in our time, he immediately expanded military spending massively.

Dexy wrote:Hitler is often condemed for killing millions of Jews, but Stalin killed 10s of millions during his industrilisation of Russia, as well as during and after the war killings of POWs and other geneocides, but because he was on the winning side, no-one really bothers about it.

People do bother about it. Really, they do. It's a big deal.

The deaths caused by Stalin were quite different, and this needs to be remembered. Most were caused by famine, as a result of stupid and brutal collectivisation policies. This is still horrific, but is different to industrialised death camps.

Most of Stalin's bodycount is similar to the famine in India caused by Colonial Britain's neo-liberal reforms. Now that was a pile of dead people that hardly anyone bothers about.

Mao Zedong killed more Chinese people with his policies and reforms than probably died in the whole of the second world war, but because we weren't at war with China when it happened, it often isn't talked about in Western society.

The claim that he killed more than the total deaths of WWII is dubious, but it was certainly a lot of people, on more or less the same scale of magnitude. It is talked about a lot in Western society. It probably doesn't make it to the History Channel all that often, but that's because it doesn't involve black and white pictures of tanks driving about the place.

Guitardian wrote:Stalin may have killed more, but his paranoia motivation was political.

No, most of Stalin's bodycount was a result of failed agricultural policies. He tried to force collectivised farming onto agricultural communes and they failed utterly. Lots of people starved.

A little known fact is that lots more would have starved if the US hadn't provided aid.

See, I don't agree that there is a moral difference between mass deaths caused by purges or collectivist policies and deliberate genocide by industrial methods. They both are the result of prioritizing an ideal or concept to the extent of considering a individuals or a group of individuals to no longer be human beings.

I'm not arguing that Hitler's intentional racially motivated genocide and, say, Stalin's purges and such are the same thing. I just don't necessarily see the moral difference. Those people are just as dead either way.

SilverMK2 wrote:People seem to miss that Hitler didn't just kill Jews. He killed anyone who he found undesirable - gays, blacks, muslims, etc. I believe there were about an equal number of these people killed during the attempted extermination of the Jews, and yet few people seem to realise it or give it much attention.

Sorry sir, but the bosnian muslims fought WITH Hitler, they fromed the Handshar div. within the SS.

Grignard wrote:See, I don't agree that there is a moral difference between mass deaths caused by purges or collectivist policies and deliberate genocide by industrial methods. They both are the result of prioritizing an ideal or concept to the extent of considering a individuals or a group of individuals to no longer be human beings.

I'm not arguing that Hitler's intentional racially motivated genocide and, say, Stalin's purges and such are the same thing. I just don't necessarily see the moral difference. Those people are just as dead either way.

Western law generally does recognise a moral difference between causing death deliberately or by accident.

egor71 wrote:Sorry sir, but the bosnian muslims fought WITH Hitler, they fromed the Handshar div. within the SS.

Please see my earlier comment:

SilverMK2 wrote:

The Green Git wrote:Personally I'm flabbergasted that no one called you on the attempt to slip Muslims into the group of persecuted peoples above. Muslim ideology aligned closely with Hitler's and he had admiration for them if nothing else for their desire to kill Jews. Hitler certainly would have considered them inferior to Aryans but there was by no means any attempt to systematically kill them like there was the Jews, Poles and gays.

Aside from the Muslim Romani who were rounded up and killed...

Muslims were not dealt with in the same way as the Jews and other religious groups, but they were still killed.

SilverMK2 wrote:

egor71 wrote:Sorry sir, but the bosnian muslims fought WITH Hitler, they fromed the Handshar div. within the SS.

Please see my earlier comment:

SilverMK2 wrote:

The Green Git wrote:Personally I'm flabbergasted that no one called you on the attempt to slip Muslims into the group of persecuted peoples above. Muslim ideology aligned closely with Hitler's and he had admiration for them if nothing else for their desire to kill Jews. Hitler certainly would have considered them inferior to Aryans but there was by no means any attempt to systematically kill them like there was the Jews, Poles and gays.

Aside from the Muslim Romani who were rounded up and killed...

Muslims were not dealt with in the same way as the Jews and other religious groups, but they were still killed.

Onley Roma living in islamic countries are muslim.
The Roma in Europe are catholic or protestant, and these were rounded up.
They were rounded up because of the fact they are gypsies, not for their religion.
The Muslims sided with the nazies, and will do so again (Heck, mein kampf is still a best seller in turkey).

Grignard wrote:See, I don't agree that there is a moral difference between mass deaths caused by purges or collectivist policies and deliberate genocide by industrial methods. They both are the result of prioritizing an ideal or concept to the extent of considering a individuals or a group of individuals to no longer be human beings.

Sure, the victim is dead either way, but there is a difference between pre-meditated murder and negligent manslaughter.

So, basically it's the same and it's different, at the same time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

egor71 wrote:Onley Roma living in islamic countries are muslim.
The Roma in Europe are catholic or protestant, and these were rounded up.
They were rounded up because of the fact they are gypsies, not for their religion.
The Muslims sided with the nazies, and will do so again (Heck, mein kampf is still a best seller in turkey).

"The Muslims will". Bloody hell.

If you want to take a high road against racism, you might want to think about whether you should really be assuming a religious group exhibits a hive mind or not.

The Muslims sided with the nazies, and will do so again (Heck, mein kampf is still a best seller in turkey).

It's also a best seller in india and mongolia, whats your point? I think you should probably go outside and talk to a muslim or something.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Grignard wrote:See, I don't agree that there is a moral difference between mass deaths caused by purges or collectivist policies and deliberate genocide by industrial methods. They both are the result of prioritizing an ideal or concept to the extent of considering a individuals or a group of individuals to no longer be human beings.

I'm not arguing that Hitler's intentional racially motivated genocide and, say, Stalin's purges and such are the same thing. I just don't necessarily see the moral difference. Those people are just as dead either way.

Western law generally does recognise a moral difference between causing death deliberately or by accident.

But I don't agree with that being exactly what is going on. If I accidentally run over someone with my car and kill them, that obviously isn't the same as deliberately running them over.

That isn't the same thing though. If you enact a set of say, agricultural policies, that you implement without regard.....or lets say, prioritizing the policy over concern over human life, then that is murder. If I lock someone in my basement without food and water, then they die, that isn't slavery or an "accident" just because I made them change my lightbulbs first, its murder, deliberate and pre-meditated, at least by my moral beliefs. Furthermore, as far as political purges, meaning, murdering someone because they don't share your political beliefs, is absolutely indistinguishable, in my opinion, from racial genocide.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

egor71 wrote:Onley Roma living in islamic countries are muslim.
The Roma in Europe are catholic or protestant, and these were rounded up.
They were rounded up because of the fact they are gypsies, not for their religion.
The Muslims sided with the nazies, and will do so again (Heck, mein kampf is still a best seller in turkey).

"The Muslims will". Bloody hell.

If you want to take a high road against racism, you might want to think about whether you should really be assuming a religious group exhibits a hive mind or not.

That wouldn't be racism, that would be religious intolerance. Regardless, many predominantly Muslim nations did indeed side with the Axis, though that probably had nothing to do with their religion. It is hard to argue that populist elements in some Islamic areas would not have as much of a problem with a movement associated with antisemitism. I'm not trying to argue right or wrong there, nor am I saying that Israel doesn't participate in its share of bad behavior, I'm just wondering if that isn't a fact.

Grignard wrote:That wouldn't be racism, that would be religious intolerance.

It's the same crap no matter what word is used to describe it.

Regardless, many predominantly Muslim nations did indeed side with the Axis, though that probably had nothing to do with their religion. It is hard to argue that populist elements in some Islamic areas would not have as much of a problem with a movement associated with antisemitism. I'm not trying to argue right or wrong there, nor am I saying that Israel doesn't participate in its share of bad behavior, I'm just wondering if that isn't a fact.

In the scheme of things, I don't think German views of the Jews was a driving cause in any nation's decision to ally with or against the Germans. Compared to realpolitik, and the history of the major powers in those countries, the fate of an ethnic minority in Germany just wasn't that big of a deal. I mean, none of the major allied powers entered the war to save the Jews, why should we demand a different choice from Turkey?

That said, there is certainly a huge problem with anti-semitism in many parts of the Muslim world. In many places it's getting worse. But the difference between acknowledging that and predicting the muslims will side with the Nazis again is the difference between a considered opinion and a bigoted one.

Grignard wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Grignard wrote:See, I don't agree that there is a moral difference between mass deaths caused by purges or collectivist policies and deliberate genocide by industrial methods. They both are the result of prioritizing an ideal or concept to the extent of considering a individuals or a group of individuals to no longer be human beings.

I'm not arguing that Hitler's intentional racially motivated genocide and, say, Stalin's purges and such are the same thing. I just don't necessarily see the moral difference. Those people are just as dead either way.

Western law generally does recognise a moral difference between causing death deliberately or by accident.

But I don't agree with that being exactly what is going on. If I accidentally run over someone with my car and kill them, that obviously isn't the same as deliberately running them over.

That isn't the same thing though. If you enact a set of say, agricultural policies, that you implement without regard.....or lets say, prioritizing the policy over concern over human life, then that is murder. If I lock someone in my basement without food and water, then they die, that isn't slavery or an "accident" just because I made them change my lightbulbs first, its murder, deliberate and pre-meditated, at least by my moral beliefs. Furthermore, as far as political purges, meaning, murdering someone because they don't share your political beliefs, is absolutely indistinguishable, in my opinion, from racial genocide.

While I don't seek to defend or excuse Stalin's collectivisation of the farms, it is still true that in western jurisprudence he might find a possible defence against a murder charge on the basis of the doctrine of double effect. It has been used successfully to defend strategic bombing and euthanasia by doctors.

Hitler's Final Solution could not possibly admit of any such defence, since its specific purpose was mass murder.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Grignard wrote:See, I don't agree that there is a moral difference between mass deaths caused by purges or collectivist policies and deliberate genocide by industrial methods. They both are the result of prioritizing an ideal or concept to the extent of considering a individuals or a group of individuals to no longer be human beings.

I'm not arguing that Hitler's intentional racially motivated genocide and, say, Stalin's purges and such are the same thing. I just don't necessarily see the moral difference. Those people are just as dead either way.

Western law generally does recognise a moral difference between causing death deliberately or by accident.

But I don't agree with that being exactly what is going on. If I accidentally run over someone with my car and kill them, that obviously isn't the same as deliberately running them over.

That isn't the same thing though. If you enact a set of say, agricultural policies, that you implement without regard.....or lets say, prioritizing the policy over concern over human life, then that is murder. If I lock someone in my basement without food and water, then they die, that isn't slavery or an "accident" just because I made them change my lightbulbs first, its murder, deliberate and pre-meditated, at least by my moral beliefs. Furthermore, as far as political purges, meaning, murdering someone because they don't share your political beliefs, is absolutely indistinguishable, in my opinion, from racial genocide.

While I don't seek to defend or excuse Stalin's collectivisation of the farms, it is still true that in western jurisprudence he might find a possible defence against a murder charge on the basis of the doctrine of double effect. It has been used successfully to defend strategic bombing and euthanasia by doctors.

Hitler's Final Solution could not possibly admit of any such defence, since its specific purpose was mass murder.

I really don't know much about the law, that is my moral standpoint.

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:Hitler, is without a doubt, one of the most evil men to have ever lived.

The people who revere him are Neo Nazis/SKinheads.

why has no-one ever noticed this before

Ghenghis aka Timujin or whatever his real name was (I'm not about to wiki right now on DSL) was a conqueror because he had to be in order to compete with his neighbors. In his conquests, he, much like earlier slaughtering bastard Alexander, wanted to assimilate and share with the cultures of the people he conquered... even to the point of adopting orphans of the conquered peoples, learning their religions, marrying his sons off to their daughters. An attempt at unification done by primitive method, not an attempt at extermination.

Hitler on the other hand, was just an angry frustrated dill weed who shouted loud enough when anybody in Germany would listen to anything that gave them hope or pride or dignity... whatever all the same gak. Aryan pride nowadays is a plague on the earth and any White Supremists who think they are the master race should spend 5 minutes in the bronx or south chicago and see how tough their dumb skinhead asses are then. Curb Stomped.

It's different when you don't have a lynch mob or armed guards and a gas chamber... to think your race is 'superior' when your getting your ass kicked by a black jew one on one, or a thieving gypsy, or an englishman with dark skin, or etc etc. Aryans are the biggest pussies of all when push comes to shove, unless they have more mob number going for them. The KKK are cowards hiding behind hoods for christ sake! (literally... supposedly for 'christ's sake'). Hitler spawned that brand of ignorant violent lethal hate. He didn't seed it, the klan had to do with slavery and dumb southerners who didn't understand what 'all men are created equal' meant and were pissed that they had to surrendur to the northerners (i wish we would have just let them leave, personally i hate the country and country music and hicks and klans and lynchins and skinheads and football teams out of tennesse and nashville and knoxville and dollywood... why didn't we just let them seceed? Then Mexican illegal immigration could be their problem and the Confedaracy could be our buffer zone. But I digress... gosh i could go on for a while).

But Hitler took it to a pinnacle That pinnacle of gas chambers and racial issues is far different than adopting your enemies orphans like Timujin did.

Kilkrazy wrote:While I don't seek to defend or excuse Stalin's collectivisation of the farms, it is still true that in western jurisprudence he might find a possible defence against a murder charge on the basis of the doctrine of double effect. It has been used successfully to defend strategic bombing and euthanasia by doctors.

Hitler's Final Solution could not possibly admit of any such defence, since its specific purpose was mass murder.

It's specific purpose was first and foremost financial and political, though I see the point.

No, the purpose of putting people into gas chambers was to kill them.

If it had been to disinfect them of lice infestation, but killed them by accident, it could have been covered by the doctrine of double effect.

Guitardian wrote:Ghenghis aka Timujin or whatever his real name was (I'm not about to wiki right now on DSL) was a conqueror because he had to be in order to compete with his neighbors. In his conquests, he, much like earlier slaughtering bastard Alexander, wanted to assimilate and share with the cultures of the people he conquered... even to the point of adopting orphans of the conquered peoples, learning their religions, marrying his sons off to their daughters. An attempt at unification done by primitive method, not an attempt at extermination.

Hitler on the other hand, was just an angry frustrated dill weed who shouted loud enough when anybody in Germany would listen to anything that gave them hope or pride or dignity... whatever all the same gak. Aryan pride nowadays is a plague on the earth and any White Supremists who think they are the master race should spend 5 minutes in the bronx or south chicago and see how tough their dumb skinhead asses are then. Curb Stomped.

It's different when you don't have a lynch mob or armed guards and a gas chamber... to think your race is 'superior' when your getting your ass kicked by a black jew one on one, or a thieving gypsy, or an englishman with dark skin, or etc etc. Aryans are the biggest pussies of all when push comes to shove, unless they have more mob number going for them. The KKK are cowards hiding behind hoods for christ sake! (literally... supposedly for 'christ's sake'). Hitler spawned that brand of ignorant violent lethal hate. He didn't seed it, the klan had to do with slavery and dumb southerners who didn't understand what 'all men are created equal' meant and were pissed that they had to surrendur to the northerners (i wish we would have just let them leave, personally i hate the country and country music and hicks and klans and lynchins and skinheads and football teams out of tennesse and nashville and knoxville and dollywood... why didn't we just let them seceed? Then Mexican illegal immigration could be their problem and the Confedaracy could be our buffer zone. But I digress... gosh i could go on for a while).

But Hitler took it to a pinnacle That pinnacle of gas chambers and racial issues is far different than adopting your enemies orphans like Timujin did.

How can you wrap your admittedly small mind around the concept of denigrating racism and racists, then turn around less than a paragraph later and associate people with whatever negative labels you can come up with solely because of where they're from and their socioeconomic background? You've pretty much called everyone I know and care for idiots. Why don't you think before opening your mouth, or are you intentionally trying to be a douchebag?

Well hes made fun of. see..........

Guitardian wrote:Ghenghis aka Timujin or whatever his real name was (I'm not about to wiki right now on DSL) was a conqueror because he had to be in order to compete with his neighbors. In his conquests, he, much like earlier slaughtering bastard Alexander, wanted to assimilate and share with the cultures of the people he conquered... even to the point of adopting orphans of the conquered peoples, learning their religions, marrying his sons off to their daughters. An attempt at unification done by primitive method, not an attempt at extermination.

Hitler on the other hand, was just an angry frustrated dill weed who shouted loud enough when anybody in Germany would listen to anything that gave them hope or pride or dignity... whatever all the same gak. Aryan pride nowadays is a plague on the earth and any White Supremists who think they are the master race should spend 5 minutes in the bronx or south chicago and see how tough their dumb skinhead asses are then. Curb Stomped.

It's different when you don't have a lynch mob or armed guards and a gas chamber... to think your race is 'superior' when your getting your ass kicked by a black jew one on one, or a thieving gypsy, or an englishman with dark skin, or etc etc. Aryans are the biggest pussies of all when push comes to shove, unless they have more mob number going for them. The KKK are cowards hiding behind hoods for christ sake! (literally... supposedly for 'christ's sake'). Hitler spawned that brand of ignorant violent lethal hate. He didn't seed it, the klan had to do with slavery and dumb southerners who didn't understand what 'all men are created equal' meant and were pissed that they had to surrendur to the northerners (i wish we would have just let them leave, personally i hate the country and country music and hicks and klans and lynchins and skinheads and football teams out of tennesse and nashville and knoxville and dollywood... why didn't we just let them seceed? Then Mexican illegal immigration could be their problem and the Confedaracy could be our buffer zone. But I digress... gosh i could go on for a while).

But Hitler took it to a pinnacle That pinnacle of gas chambers and racial issues is far different than adopting your enemies orphans like Timujin did.

Damn, you've got a lot of hate for southerners. Would you say all that you just wrote face to face with one, or would you not, figuring you'd end up like the skinheads you challenge to go to the inner city?

Relapse wrote:

Guitardian wrote:Ghenghis aka Timujin or whatever his real name was (I'm not about to wiki right now on DSL) was a conqueror because he had to be in order to compete with his neighbors. In his conquests, he, much like earlier slaughtering bastard Alexander, wanted to assimilate and share with the cultures of the people he conquered... even to the point of adopting orphans of the conquered peoples, learning their religions, marrying his sons off to their daughters. An attempt at unification done by primitive method, not an attempt at extermination.

Hitler on the other hand, was just an angry frustrated dill weed who shouted loud enough when anybody in Germany would listen to anything that gave them hope or pride or dignity... whatever all the same gak. Aryan pride nowadays is a plague on the earth and any White Supremists who think they are the master race should spend 5 minutes in the bronx or south chicago and see how tough their dumb skinhead asses are then. Curb Stomped.

It's different when you don't have a lynch mob or armed guards and a gas chamber... to think your race is 'superior' when your getting your ass kicked by a black jew one on one, or a thieving gypsy, or an englishman with dark skin, or etc etc. Aryans are the biggest pussies of all when push comes to shove, unless they have more mob number going for them. The KKK are cowards hiding behind hoods for christ sake! (literally... supposedly for 'christ's sake'). Hitler spawned that brand of ignorant violent lethal hate. He didn't seed it, the klan had to do with slavery and dumb southerners who didn't understand what 'all men are created equal' meant and were pissed that they had to surrendur to the northerners (i wish we would have just let them leave, personally i hate the country and country music and hicks and klans and lynchins and skinheads and football teams out of tennesse and nashville and knoxville and dollywood... why didn't we just let them seceed? Then Mexican illegal immigration could be their problem and the Confedaracy could be our buffer zone. But I digress... gosh i could go on for a while).

But Hitler took it to a pinnacle That pinnacle of gas chambers and racial issues is far different than adopting your enemies orphans like Timujin did.

Damn, you've got a lot of hate for southerners. Would you say all that you just wrote face to face with one, or would you not, figuring you'd end up like the skinheads you challenge to go to the inner city?

Not only a lot of hate, but doesn't really have a clue about what he's ranting about.

Platuan4th wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Guitardian wrote:Ghenghis aka Timujin or whatever his real name was (I'm not about to wiki right now on DSL) was a conqueror because he had to be in order to compete with his neighbors. In his conquests, he, much like earlier slaughtering bastard Alexander, wanted to assimilate and share with the cultures of the people he conquered... even to the point of adopting orphans of the conquered peoples, learning their religions, marrying his sons off to their daughters. An attempt at unification done by primitive method, not an attempt at extermination.

Hitler on the other hand, was just an angry frustrated dill weed who shouted loud enough when anybody in Germany would listen to anything that gave them hope or pride or dignity... whatever all the same gak. Aryan pride nowadays is a plague on the earth and any White Supremists who think they are the master race should spend 5 minutes in the bronx or south chicago and see how tough their dumb skinhead asses are then. Curb Stomped.

It's different when you don't have a lynch mob or armed guards and a gas chamber... to think your race is 'superior' when your getting your ass kicked by a black jew one on one, or a thieving gypsy, or an englishman with dark skin, or etc etc. Aryans are the biggest pussies of all when push comes to shove, unless they have more mob number going for them. The KKK are cowards hiding behind hoods for christ sake! (literally... supposedly for 'christ's sake'). Hitler spawned that brand of ignorant violent lethal hate. He didn't seed it, the klan had to do with slavery and dumb southerners who didn't understand what 'all men are created equal' meant and were pissed that they had to surrendur to the northerners (i wish we would have just let them leave, personally i hate the country and country music and hicks and klans and lynchins and skinheads and football teams out of tennesse and nashville and knoxville and dollywood... why didn't we just let them seceed? Then Mexican illegal immigration could be their problem and the Confedaracy could be our buffer zone. But I digress... gosh i could go on for a while).

But Hitler took it to a pinnacle That pinnacle of gas chambers and racial issues is far different than adopting your enemies orphans like Timujin did.

Damn, you've got a lot of hate for southerners. Would you say all that you just wrote face to face with one, or would you not, figuring you'd end up like the skinheads you challenge to go to the inner city?

Not only a lot of hate, but doesn't really have a clue about what he's ranting about.

All that needs doing with this rant is to replace the word "Southerner" with Jew and the word "Mexican" with Gypsy and we have a fine idea of how Hitler was able to gain power in Germany. It seems the idea is that it's okay to hate a group of people and elevate another group as long asit's the right group.

My wife's family is from East Texas. Farmers, truckers and construction workers they are, to a man. I know how his rant would play out if he delivered it in person to them.

Relapse wrote:

Damn, you've got a lot of hate for southerners. Would you say all that you just wrote face to face with one, or would you not, figuring you'd end up like the skinheads you challenge to go to the inner city?

Don't worry, the next post is going to be the one where he backpedals and says " Oh, I just meant those who are in the Klan or Skinheads or whatever, not everyone". Of course, no explanation will be given for associating his rant about country music, American football, and dollywood. Dollywood for christ's sake? Its a theme park with an Appalachian theme, you either like it or don't, it isn't something to sit around and rant about. He doesn't know history either, because fully half of the areas he is specifically mentioning were primarily allied with the Federals, not that it matters 150 years later.

Grignard wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Damn, you've got a lot of hate for southerners. Would you say all that you just wrote face to face with one, or would you not, figuring you'd end up like the skinheads you challenge to go to the inner city?

Don't worry, the next post is going to be the one where he backpedals and says " Oh, I just meant those who are in the Klan or Skinheads or whatever, not everyone". Of course, no explanation will be given for associating his rant about country music, American football, and dollywood. Dollywood for christ's sake? Its a theme park with an Appalachian theme, you either like it or don't, it isn't something to sit around and rant about. He doesn't know history either, because fully half of the areas he is specifically mentioning were primarily allied with the Federals, not that it matters 150 years later.

Plus the fact that he states that they didn't "understand what 'all men are created equal' meant" when the majority of people in the North could care less about slavery and were allowing freemen to be taken off the streets and dragged into slavery without doing anything to stop it or change the laws associated with it.

As I said earlier, he doesn't know a thing about what he's ranting on.

ShumaGorath wrote:

The Muslims sided with the nazies, and will do so again (Heck, mein kampf is still a best seller in turkey).

It's also a best seller in india and mongolia, whats your point? I think you should probably go outside and talk to a muslim or something.

Im not saying your wrong Shuma, and im not saying its a cut and shut case that the Muslims would "side with the nazis" but i dont think its as clear cut as you like to make out.

I know loads of you guys like to be all PC and all, but seriously, what the blokes saying isnt THAT nuts.

Granted I only know personally 2 muslims, one is a bloke ive known about ten years and he isnt a real muslim, you know, his parents tried to get him an arranged marriage and he told them to bugger off, likes a pint, supports the Boro etc etc

And the other is more muslim, but still a very normal British bloke, not mega devout or anything and hes a work colleague of my brothers.

Anyway, both of them genuinelly do dislike Jews.

And all the taxi drivers in Boro are Muslims, and i make a point of straight out mentioning Isreal in front of them to see the reaction because it makes me laugh, and literally 95% of the time they go into a rant. I reel them in every time as im trying to make a point to my guardian reading friends who think the world is infintely more peaceful and pleasant than it actually is.

Ill say something like "mate did you see that footage of them mental Jews jumping onto that boat?"

and then they go "fething Jews! All the fething same, greedy .. rant rant rant" and my friends sigh and call me a spanker when we get out the taxi.

It aint PC to say it, but seriously, LOADS of Muslims dont like Jews.

Not saying they all dont, but shedloads. Are you that certain that Iran and Syria and places like that wouldnt happily turn a blind eye is someone started putting the Jews in the hurt locker that you feel you can mock people for suggesting otherwise?

Grignard wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Damn, you've got a lot of hate for southerners. Would you say all that you just wrote face to face with one, or would you not, figuring you'd end up like the skinheads you challenge to go to the inner city?

Don't worry, the next post is going to be the one where he backpedals and says " Oh, I just meant those who are in the Klan or Skinheads or whatever, not everyone". Of course, no explanation will be given for associating his rant about country music, American football, and dollywood. Dollywood for christ's sake? Its a theme park with an Appalachian theme, you either like it or don't, it isn't something to sit around and rant about. He doesn't know history either, because fully half of the areas he is specifically mentioning were primarily allied with the Federals, not that it matters 150 years later.

He talks about skinheads hiding behind a crowd, but spouting this crap from the safety of a keyboard isn't much different. When a person is willing to say this face to face with someone they know can have a good chance of kicking the crap out of them, that's when I respect the courage of their conviction if not their tact or intellegence.
I give myself a litmus test on the things I write. Would I say it to someone in person? If not, I don't write it because I hate being the kind of person that hides behind a keyboard while talking tough.

mattyrm wrote:
It aint PC to say it, but seriously, LOADS of Muslims dont like Jews.

Yeah, that's definitely true. Though I think we have to point out how that antisemitism is now bound up with anti-imperialism. Israel is a pretty big stamp indicating that "The West Was Here".

What's really fascinating though is how localized the hatred of Jews is; there really isn't much of it in the Eastern element of Islam.

dogma wrote:
What's really fascinating though is how localized the hatred of Jews is; there really isn't much of it in the Eastern element of Islam.

Replace "Jews" with "Hindus" and you have your reason for the most part.

Platuan4th wrote:
Replace "Jews" with "Hindus" and you have your reason for the most part.

Its a bit different though, as Hindus outnumber Muslims in the proximity of the subcontinent. Its almost a weird sort of inversion of what exists in the Middle East.

That said, the primary conflict between Hindus and Muslims (India v. Pakistan) has less to do with religion than it does with a 60 year old territorial dispute.

dogma wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:
Replace "Jews" with "Hindus" and you have your reason for the most part.

Its a bit different though, as Hindus outnumber Muslims in the proximity of the subcontinent. Its almost a weird sort of inversion of what exists in the Middle East.

That said, the primary conflict between Hindus and Muslims (India v. Pakistan) has less to do with religion than it does with a 60 year old territorial dispute.

Oh, I know. I was just saying that it's part of the reasoning.