given Germany's history, one should think that even the most idiotic and uneducated Germans recognize Hitler's regime for what it was. However, as long as I've been able to read news, Neonazis are gaining in numbers and political strength.
A recent study by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, a foundation to promote democracy, has shown that an alarming number of Germans, to be precise: 9%, embrace far right political views an sympathize with the Nazi-Party or its (rather pathetic and ineffectual) reincarnation: NPD.
In East Germany, the structurally weaker ex-GDR, the numbers are downright terrifying: During the past two years, the number of far right-wings has been more than doubled, from 6.6 to more than 15%. Which makes these numbers more alarming is that those who have been indoctrinated by the original Nazis are virtually extinct, so we're speaking of an entirely new generation of Nazis.
Surely these Neo-Nazis are misled by a cunning political entity?
Far from it. The NPD is a joke, it's not even worth mentioning. Although they have representation in 2/16 state parliaments, with no representation in the federal government, it is extremely hard to take them seriously. Their public appearances are clumsy, borderline comical, and attest a chaotic, haphazard political program without clear direction.
Why is this problematic?
If you grow up in Germany, you will be thoroughly educated about the Nazi Party. The history of the Third Reich is mandatory part of your historical education and secondary schools frequently have week-long projects to further awareness of the horrors of Hitler's Germany. Chances are, you will at one point visit one of the concentration camps of Buchenwald or Auschwitz and schools go through great lenghts to get jewish orators who have witnessed Nazi Germany first hand. History programs on TV eat up that chapter as well and the Federal Agency for Civic Education offers a plethora of different magazines for free so one can educate oneself even further.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
How do other Germans deal with these issues?
German constitution gives anyone including the Nazis the right for public assembly, NPD-member ofttimes gather in large numbers to March for their misguided cause and try to recruit members.
Obviously, the rest of Germany isn't oblivious to those assemblies and since the right-wing-extremists are vastly outnumbered, usually peaceful protest prevents them from marching.
Personal opinion
To be perfectly clear, I don't suggest that in 10 years time we'll go about killing Jews and invading Poland again, I just want to express my anger and sadness that despite comprehensive educational matters and in times of peace of properity, there grows a new generation of antisemetic, antiislamic and antidemocratic young people who sympathise with the demonic Nazi regime.
Points of discussion
- German / Nazi related jokes - Speculation of sources (educational, economic, political etc.) - Right-wing extremists in your own country - etc.
Neonazis make me feel sick to the stomach. Worst part of it are the people who know exactly what happened with Hitler and are still neonazis. Scum of the earth...
I guess fucked up people will always be around, its when they get to power that things go wrong.
Far-right xenophobic populism has been on the rise this past decade all across Europe. Germany is no exception in the matter, though they may have a different view on things due to their history.
I do feel that in the current day and age, with global communication accessible to anyone in developed countries, it would be very hard for a Nazi-like party to gain total control over a country like they did in Germany in the 1930's. Nevertheless, it's something to be wary about.
Tasteless jokes aside, in sweden we currently have a far-right political party in Parliament since 2010, and they have been gaining support as of late, probably related to the Swedish Social Democratic Party having a pretty rough stretch for afew years. Their main issues are Immigration and the Sami People - If you are interested you should read their wiki page, it seems to be fairly accurate:
Personally I feel like this is the crap you have to tolerate in a democracy. Far-right movements do seem to pop up when the economy is in the tank, especially in the poor areas that might suffer the most.
far right sentiments is a proper public concern. much like terrorism, racism and other kinds of 'bad' ideology. it needs to be controlled and eradicated if possible.
Germany may look economically strong compared to the rest of Europe, maybe even the world, but we still have high unemployment rates in exactly the parts of Germany where the Neo-Nazis grow stronger. Economic hardships always breed extremist movements, look at Greece, Eastern Europe or even Russia. They FOUGHT against Nazis in WW2 and now they fly the swastika and march in the streets.
I live in Munich and pretty much never meet any Neo-Nazis, because Munich is one of the richest cities in Germany and Europe. We even have one of the highest percentages of foreign population of big german cities, but there aren't any problems, because there are also enough jobs.
Almost every country in Europe has a rise of extremists. France and Belgium too. Doesn't it happen every recession? Easier to blame others for one's own shortcomings.
On November 13 2012 00:27 Gretchen wrote: It's the economy, stupid.
Germany may look economically strong compared to the rest of Europe, maybe even the world, but we still have high unemployment rates in exactly the parts of Germany where the Neo-Nazis grow stronger. Economic hardships always breed extremist movements, look at Greece, Eastern Europe or even Russia. They FOUGHT against Nazis in WW2 and now they fly the swastika and march in the streets.
I live in Munich and pretty much never meet any Neo-Nazis, because Munich is one of the richest cities in Germany and Europe. We even have one of the highest percentages of foreign population of big german cities, but there aren't any problems, because there are also enough jobs.
The ones you have seen, are they generally delightful (Or Rude as fuck/Intimidating?) people? Are they frowned upon from the majority of Germans?
On November 13 2012 00:22 Kipsate wrote: I would like to see the methodology behind the study, 9% seems far too much.
Actually eastern Germany has a really high amount of very far right people. I wouldn't call them Neonazis since that term is used too broadly these days, but their views are very similar. It's mostly hate on foreigners from Poland or the Czech Republic that makes them support anyone that promises to get rid of those.
A reason for that is probably the high unemployment in that area and how easy it is to blame polish or czech immigrants for "stealing the jobs".
In western germany i don't think there are more than a few crazy people, i would say it's a lot less than 9% in those regions.
National Socialist German Workers' Party. Socialism is still prevelant throughout the world. It is no surprise that it is in Germany or Greece or America or anywhere.
Next time socialism trys its hand at world domination, it will not be by force, but by coercion and subversion. The more citizens rely on social funding etc, the more power the local government has over the individual.
A solution to this would be for every individual to decline such handouts whenever possible and be responsible in commerce and contracts, knowing their rights and responsibilities and fighting tooth and nail whenever social programs are introduced to replace existing models.
Edit: People seem to think Nazi means "far right", I argue that the opposite is true. Their objectives require government to be a surrogate parent to citizens.
This is indeed scary, but hardly surprising. Every country has their share of these idiots.
If you grow up in Germany, you will be thoroughly educated about the Nazi Party. The history of the Third Reich is mandatory part of your historical education and secondary schools frequently have week-long projects to further awareness of the horrors of Hitler's Germany. Chances are, you will at one point visit one of the concentration camps of Buchenwald or Auschwitz and schools go through great lenghts to get jewish orators who have witnessed Nazi Germany first hand. History programs on TV eat up that chapter as well and the Federal Agency for Civic Education offers a plethora of different magazines for free so one can educate oneself even further.
Amazing if true. I look at countries like Japan who are being hated on by their neighbors because they are not educating the general population about WW2 and the atrocities of the Empire of the Rising Sun, and would rather focus on how they are the only victims (Hiroshima/Nagasaki). That's equally as sickening as this. Germans are actually educated about the Nazis!
I believe you are misreading the data. I very much doubt 15% of east-germans think of themselves as "neo-nazis" or even "far-right". If it's anything, it's less about being a jew-hater and more about discontent regarding the current policies on immigration. There is currently this terribly popular idea in the media that the muslims, or islamists, are taking over Europe, and that eventually the whole world will be come Iran.
While the media coverage may be somewhat exaggerated, I do feel much like alot of other people, in my country and yours, that my own country is becoming less and less mine every time there is a mosque built or a compromise made in parliament for "sensitivity towards immigrants". I don't hate immigrants, I don't hate muslims, but I can't help but feel angry when they come into my country and demand more and more "rights" while at the same time refusing to assimilate.
At the same time, I recognize that this is a somewhat demonized image of immigrants. Of course they are not all a collective group of dicks that come into another man's house and make demands. The vocal minority always give the majority a bad rap. And as long as I do not have to give up freedoms of my own, what's the harm in anything anyone else does? Either way, if I want to hear people shouting praise of Allah from the rooftops, I'd sooner go to Afghanistan than have to hear it in my own country, where I have my own culture and traditions.
I may have rambled a bit but TL:DR => people are not nazis just because they feel unease at the growing amount of foreign influences in their countries.
On November 13 2012 00:31 Raggamuffinoo wrote: National Socialist German Workers' Party. Socialism is still prevelant throughout the world. It is no surprise that it is in Germany or Greece or America or anywhere.
Next time socialism trys its hand at world domination, it will not be by force, but by coercion and subversion. The more citizens rely on social funding etc, the more power the local government has over the individual.
A solution to this would be for every individual to decline such handouts whenever possible and be responsible in commerce and contracts, knowing their rights and responsibilities and fighting tooth and nail whenever social programs are introduced to replace existing models.
yea the nice old ladies in oxbridge are after your freedom. get real.
Actually they are around 2-5% with a lot of protest voters, and in Germany are actually way less nazis than in other europe states and this is because Germany was National socialistic and has a good education, so this legacy makes the germans way more resistant to right ideology than most other states in the world.
Also if you look on election results in other countries, in Germany the NPD has way less votes than other right wing parties in other countries.
I think the problem has been the lack of a mainstream party that questions immigration. Any attempt has been met with harsh criticism from the media so it's been a non-issue for a long time. A lot of people feel like their views aren't being represented, and after a while they flock to the extremes. I'm not in the least surprised. It's scary, but not surprising.
If you grow up in Germany, you will be thoroughly educated about the Nazi Party. The history of the Third Reich is mandatory part of your historical education and secondary schools frequently have week-long projects to further awareness of the horrors of Hitler's Germany. Chances are, you will at one point visit one of the concentration camps of Buchenwald or Auschwitz and schools go through great lenghts to get jewish orators who have witnessed Nazi Germany first hand. History programs on TV eat up that chapter as well and the Federal Agency for Civic Education offers a plethora of different magazines for free so one can educate oneself even further.
Amazing if true. I look at countries like Japan who are being hated on by their neighbors because they are not educating the general population about WW2 and the atrocities of the Empire of the Rising Sun, and would rather focus on how they are the only victims (Hiroshima/Nagasaki). That's equally as sickening as this. Germans are actually educated about the Nazis!
Yes, at school we went through the whole WW2 thing 3 times at great length, including visiting some concentration camp (forgot which one). It was about 95% of the history education and the rest of history got mostly skipped over. It's ridiculous actually. After going through it once, maybe spending half a year of history lessons on that all understood that it was a bad time and noone wants that to happen again, so learning something about the other few thousand years of history would have been nice.
On November 13 2012 00:24 Masq wrote: When threads like this pop up I sometimes read a few threads on Stormfront, and I always end up wondering why people think the way they do.
I'd like to add some parts of the statistics, that OP left out, just to give a better picture.
Most of the people sympathizing with these ideas have a low standard of education (no "Abitur", which is the degree you need to be accepted at universities). People older than 60 are much more likely to be in Agreement. Also, they generally live in areas where they have no contact to migrants.
The actual news here is that the agreement with right-extremist positions has risen from 8.2% to 9% in the course of 2 years. According to my source, the percentage in Eastern Germany was actually 10.2% not 6.6% two years ago
don't complain about that 'biased' education of history. it's for your own good. see e.g.
“Do you realize,” German Chancellor Helmut Kohl asked Ash after reunification, explaining his commitment to united Europe, “that you are sitting opposite the direct successor to Adolf Hitler?”*
the same can be said for education and politics for the direct successors of the ww2 generation. historical memory needs to be upheld. in this regard germany is far superior to whatever japan has done, outside of making anti-war cartoons.
On November 13 2012 00:27 Gretchen wrote: It's the economy, stupid.
Germany may look economically strong compared to the rest of Europe, maybe even the world, but we still have high unemployment rates in exactly the parts of Germany where the Neo-Nazis grow stronger. Economic hardships always breed extremist movements, look at Greece, Eastern Europe or even Russia. They FOUGHT against Nazis in WW2 and now they fly the swastika and march in the streets.
I live in Munich and pretty much never meet any Neo-Nazis, because Munich is one of the richest cities in Germany and Europe. We even have one of the highest percentages of foreign population of big german cities, but there aren't any problems, because there are also enough jobs.
I never understood the part about the economy, since even if you're relatively poor in Germany, you'll still be absolutely prosperous. Being unemployed in Germany makes you wealthier than average wage in many other countries.
As a student, I earn just a little less than a long-term unemployed person on Hartz 4 and I can live very comfortably.
What kind of logic is there supposed to be? "Fuck, I can't afford the new iPhone, let's gas some gypsies!"
On November 13 2012 00:38 coma wrote: I'd like to add some parts of the statistics, ht OP left out, just to give a better picture.
Most of the people sympathizing with these ideas have a low standard of education (no "Abitur", which is the degree you need to be accepted at universities). People older than 60 are much more likely to be in Agreement. Also, they generally live in areas where they have no contact to migrants.
The actual news here is that the agreement with right-extremist positions has risen from 8.2% to 9% in the course of 2 years. According to my source, the Number in East Germany was actually 10.2% not 6.6%
I really hope this trend doesn't continue.
Those figures are still quite alarming regardless. I can't think of anything to do to solve the problem...
On November 13 2012 00:24 Masq wrote: When threads like this pop up I sometimes read a few threads on Stormfront, and I always end up wondering why people think the way they do.
I thought i was alone, but i do this also.
I've trolled Stormfront a little, but those people are just insane. ;P
I don't think Germany will go back and become a state controlled by Nazi's. The main reason they were able to take power is simply because Germany was in a brutal depression, and were worse off than much of the world because Germany had just lost WW I. The Nazi party brought hope and for the most part what they did, did actually pull Germany out of the depression. Germany now is one of the strongest economies, and as long as people are happy and not desperate for change or something the current government will be fine. Germany is so stable the only way Nazi party could get power again is if people are stupid and vote them in (or however you guys put people in charge) or a hostile take over which won't happen unless the miltary decides to support it, in which case Britain would prolly bomb Germany.
On November 13 2012 00:32 Xpace wrote: This is indeed scary, but hardly surprising. Every country has their share of these idiots.
If you grow up in Germany, you will be thoroughly educated about the Nazi Party. The history of the Third Reich is mandatory part of your historical education and secondary schools frequently have week-long projects to further awareness of the horrors of Hitler's Germany. Chances are, you will at one point visit one of the concentration camps of Buchenwald or Auschwitz and schools go through great lenghts to get jewish orators who have witnessed Nazi Germany first hand. History programs on TV eat up that chapter as well and the Federal Agency for Civic Education offers a plethora of different magazines for free so one can educate oneself even further.
Amazing if true. I look at countries like Japan who are being hated on by their neighbors because they are not educating the general population about WW2 and the atrocities of the Empire of the Rising Sun, and would rather focus on how they are the only victims (Hiroshima/Nagasaki). That's equally as sickening as this. Germans are actually educated about the Nazis!
Yes, at school we went through the whole WW2 thing 3 times at great length, including visiting some concentration camp (forgot which one). It was about 95% of the history education and the rest of history got mostly skipped over. It's ridiculous actually. After going through it once, maybe spending half a year of history lessons on that all understood that it was a bad time and noone wants that to happen again, so learning something about the other few thousand years of history would have been nice.
On November 13 2012 00:32 Osmoses wrote: I believe you are misreading the data. I very much doubt 15% of east-germans think of themselves as "neo-nazis" or even "far-right". If it's anything, it's less about being a jew-hater and more about discontent regarding the current policies on immigration. There is currently this terribly popular idea in the media that the muslims, or islamists, are taking over Europe, and that eventually the whole world will be come Iran.
While the media coverage may be somewhat exaggerated, I do feel much like alot of other people, in my country and yours, that my own country is becoming less and less mine every time there is a mosque built or a compromise made in parliament for "sensitivity towards immigrants". I don't hate immigrants, I don't hate muslims, but I can't help but feel angry when they come into my country and demand more and more "rights" while at the same time refusing to assimilate.
At the same time, I recognize that this is a somewhat demonized image of immigrants. Of course they are not all a collective group of dicks that come into another man's house and make demands. The vocal minority always give the majority a bad rap. And as long as I do not have to give up freedoms of my own, what's the harm in anything anyone else does? Either way, if I want to hear people shouting praise of Allah from the rooftops, I'd sooner go to Afghanistan than have to hear it in my own country, where I have my own culture and traditions.
I may have rambled a bit but TL:DR => people are not nazis just because they feel unease at the growing amount of foreign influences in their countries.
So what party did you vote for? Just curious. Because if you feel that way, and it's an important political aspect for you, you basically have no other choice but to vote for the NPD. (Thing is, you basically can't vote for them because they can't be taken serious by anyone.) And i feel like that's a big problem.
You have it good in Germany, with no real right-wing party in parliament and a general zero tolerance consensus against the far right among all political parties. Austria's FPÖ, while not a straight-up nazi party because that would be illegal, is a very real force in Austrian politics. They even were part of the governing coalition from 2000 to 2007 and will probably get around 25% in next year's election. Most alarmingly, the FPÖ is far and away the strongest party among young voters, with 42% of people under 30 voting for them.
On November 13 2012 00:36 BluePanther wrote: For all the comments about how America is too far right politically, Europe always has this problem and we never really do.
In Europe, the GOP (or parts of it) would fit that slot nicely.
On November 13 2012 00:27 Gretchen wrote: It's the economy, stupid.
Germany may look economically strong compared to the rest of Europe, maybe even the world, but we still have high unemployment rates in exactly the parts of Germany where the Neo-Nazis grow stronger. Economic hardships always breed extremist movements, look at Greece, Eastern Europe or even Russia. They FOUGHT against Nazis in WW2 and now they fly the swastika and march in the streets.
I live in Munich and pretty much never meet any Neo-Nazis, because Munich is one of the richest cities in Germany and Europe. We even have one of the highest percentages of foreign population of big german cities, but there aren't any problems, because there are also enough jobs.
I never understood the part about the economy, since even if you're relatively poor in Germany, you'll still be absolutely prosperous. Being unemployed in Germany makes you wealthier than average wage in many other countries.
As a student, I earn just a little less than a long-term unemployed person on Hartz 4 and I can live very comfortably.
What kind of logic is there supposed to be? "Fuck, I can't afford the new iPhone, let's gas some gypsies!"
You are a student.
Then there are people with a family to support, debts and such. For them, life isn't as comfortable, they often barely get by. If they can't find work for some time, many of them start looking for someone to blame for their bad situation and people that are "different" are always easy to blame.
I find it amazing how this foundation managed find about 7 million Neo Nazis in the very center of Europe (according to the 9% figure) that no one noticed earlier.
I don't think this is much news to be honest, just the usual scaremongering - even if this was real, the (main) problem would not only be the Neonazi kids, but the issues that are being swept under the rug by the EU and Western governments. But what can we expect when the mainstream can be allowed to praise the Weimar Republic as some kind of golden era?
Germany, like many other countries had a rough 19th and 20th century, and got a lot to reflect on, but it's been overdone for a long time now and turned into some sick brainwashing. It's inevitable that sooner or later educated people will demand an end to it, but the hypocrites will scream Nazi until the end.
In ALL countries when there is a economic/social crisis, nationalist parties or doctrines feel a certain growth. Its because people need someone to point a finger for things not going right. The easiest and most common "enemy" are the "foreigners". Thats why nationalists gain some popularity since they oppose anything that is not ultra-patriotic. The economic crisis eff'ed up peoples lives. They need someone to bear the responsibility so they can live their lives. Normal parties say:"The world economy is to blame/we are to blame for taking loans/shit happens.", nationalists parties say:"THERE IS THE CULPRIT, THEY ARE THE PROBLEM AND WE NEED TO LOVE OUR COUNTRY!". So some people take that as a suitable answer even thou they don't REALLY belive it. If you look at the european nations that have been effected by the economic crysis you will see the same thing happen everywhere(Hungary and Greece being the best examples when it comes to nationalist parties gaining popularity).
In the end, neonazis are not nazis. NPD are just a nationalist party filled with incompetent people(rational,competent,smart people wouldn't join that kind of party). Its just a fad that always shows up in society when a crisis emerges. It comes and goes just as fast.
On November 13 2012 00:32 Xpace wrote: This is indeed scary, but hardly surprising. Every country has their share of these idiots.
If you grow up in Germany, you will be thoroughly educated about the Nazi Party. The history of the Third Reich is mandatory part of your historical education and secondary schools frequently have week-long projects to further awareness of the horrors of Hitler's Germany. Chances are, you will at one point visit one of the concentration camps of Buchenwald or Auschwitz and schools go through great lenghts to get jewish orators who have witnessed Nazi Germany first hand. History programs on TV eat up that chapter as well and the Federal Agency for Civic Education offers a plethora of different magazines for free so one can educate oneself even further.
Amazing if true. I look at countries like Japan who are being hated on by their neighbors because they are not educating the general population about WW2 and the atrocities of the Empire of the Rising Sun, and would rather focus on how they are the only victims (Hiroshima/Nagasaki). That's equally as sickening as this. Germans are actually educated about the Nazis!
Yes, at school we went through the whole WW2 thing 3 times at great length, including visiting some concentration camp (forgot which one). It was about 95% of the history education and the rest of history got mostly skipped over. It's ridiculous actually. After going through it once, maybe spending half a year of history lessons on that all understood that it was a bad time and noone wants that to happen again, so learning something about the other few thousand years of history would have been nice.
Thats so true actually^^. Especially since you not only cover it in your history class, but also in religion, german, english, and even art. xd
On November 13 2012 00:36 BluePanther wrote: For all the comments about how America is too far right politically, Europe always has this problem and we never really do.
In Europe, the GOP (or parts of it) would fit that slot nicely.
Not really. It may be "far right", but it's not really a "nationalist" party. Even the GOP embraces legal immigration. I think it's because the idea of being anti-immigration isn't really a feasible concept here due to our history. I think that cuts off a lot of these feelings of someone being an "other" before they become to problematic.
On November 13 2012 00:36 BluePanther wrote: For all the comments about how America is too far right politically, Europe always has this problem and we never really do.
In Europe, the GOP (or parts of it) would fit that slot nicely.
The Tea party has a lot of far right extremists who censor themselves on the public because you can't get elected if you let your racism show. There are a few nazi movements too, but they're not as scary because well, they're not in Germany? That sounds bad but I'm guessing that plays a role.
American nazis are viewed as dumb hicks and German nazis are, well, nazis.
Please dont address skinheads as Nazis, it is an insult to true Nazis. Comparing skinheads to Nazis is like comparing hippies to Communists. They are wannabes not the real deal.
On November 13 2012 00:55 ppshchik wrote: Please dont address skinheads as Nazis, it is an insult to true Nazis. Comparing skinheads to Nazis is like comparing hippies to Communists. They are wannabes not the real deal.
On November 13 2012 00:27 Gretchen wrote: It's the economy, stupid.
Germany may look economically strong compared to the rest of Europe, maybe even the world, but we still have high unemployment rates in exactly the parts of Germany where the Neo-Nazis grow stronger. Economic hardships always breed extremist movements, look at Greece, Eastern Europe or even Russia. They FOUGHT against Nazis in WW2 and now they fly the swastika and march in the streets.
I live in Munich and pretty much never meet any Neo-Nazis, because Munich is one of the richest cities in Germany and Europe. We even have one of the highest percentages of foreign population of big german cities, but there aren't any problems, because there are also enough jobs.
The ones you have seen, are they generally delightful (Or Rude as fuck/Intimidating?) people? Are they frowned upon from the majority of Germans?
Just curious xD
Of course they are frowned upon. As the OP said, when there are a 100 Neo-Nazis planning to march in the street, you can expect a few thousand people of all ages and walks of life to protest them. Mostly the police has to protect the Nazis. The common view of Neo-Nazis in the german public is: young, uneducated, violent, mislead and mentally unstable.
But of course that only relates to the street-marching skinheads. There is a broader base of "normal" looking folk, that think Hitler was quite a cool guy and had a lot of good ideas.
As i said: Whenever i saw a Neo-Nazi in my city i just recognized them because of the clothes they wore. There are certain dress codes, like "Lonsdale"-Shirts (you can cover up some of the letters and you get NSDA as in NSDAP). Solitary Neo-Nazis aren't a thread at all, they are mostly brooding shut-ins. They only become hatespeech-shouting brutes in larger groups.
Just pointing out the irony to make "German related jokes", which are jokes about a race, in a thread in which you hate so much on racist people. (^.^)_v
My little story on the subject would be that I lived a long time in the countryside in western Germany and there were a lot of conservative people living there. And I don't mean the nice conservative style of thinking, but the kind that, when I took a job at a bank, a friend from back then asked me how I could possibly pick up such jewish work.
In my humble opinion, economy is not the main problem of prejudice and racism but education is. It is true that in higher educational paths there is a lot of discussion about the third reich but I highly doubt that in lower educational institutions there's as much budget, time and willingness to learn about it. There you have the people who have no perspective, who are excluded from the "better" society (because, face it, lower education isn't regarded as a well way of living by many, especially parents).
Now here I give you some advice: Don't hate so much on other people (which you do by making this aggressive thread). The moment people feel excluded they group up, because they don't want to be alone and stuff and there you have your right wing marches. So what I do is to seek open, peaceful conversation. Oh and yes I'm still friends with that one guy, even though he's voting nothing I'd vote for, but hey, there's more to people than political views. ^.^
Keep in mind that European fascism is different than classical fascism.
Many fascists will say that Hitler was bad, but Mussolini, Salazar, and Franco were awesome. Having some far-left tendencies, I am naturally disgusted by fascism but the issues are pretty interesting. Most of them are anti-Semitic, but they have this paradoxical idea called anti-Semitic Zionism. Basically, make sure the Jews are not screwing things up in their homeland while they kick Muslim ass in Palestine. Also, many of these guys support Assad.
And then there are different issues that are rather dividing. The legitimacy of the Holocaust, women's rights, gay rights, and capitalism. Some deny the Holocaust, others say that it was Hitler being psychotic, and the most extreme ones say Hitler did not go far enough. And although many of the far-right are anti-feminist, women's rights in relation to how Muslims treat their women is a major concern often fueled with protect the white women rhetoric. Some of the fascists are feminist, but most of them are disgusted with it. And gay rights are really complicated... And lastly, capitalism. Most of them are anti-capitalist protesting neo-liberalism as their main economic enemy from the EU. They favor protectionism instead and go with a Third Position. Of course some are capitalists but that is rather rare.
Also, many of them do not like being called fascists and I forgot to mention the most important issue, immigration which I think we all know about.
If any of you are interested, I can copy and paste articles from a Neo-fascist website from the Deep Web. Disgusting in my opinion, but incredibly interesting.
On November 13 2012 00:36 BluePanther wrote: For all the comments about how America is too far right politically, Europe always has this problem and we never really do.
In Europe, the GOP (or parts of it) would fit that slot nicely.
Not really. It may be "far right", but it's not really a "nationalist" party. Even the GOP embraces legal immigration. I think it's because the idea of being anti-immigration isn't really a feasible concept here due to our history. I think that cuts off a lot of these feelings of someone being an "other" before they become to problematic.
KKK? Tea Party about Muslims? Stormfront ?
EDIT : National Socialist American Workers Freedom Movement?
Just pointing out the irony to make "German related jokes", which are jokes about a race, in a thread in which you hate so much on racist people. (^.^)_v
On November 13 2012 00:44 HeeroFX wrote: I don't think Germany will go back and become a state controlled by Nazi's. The main reason they were able to take power is simply because Germany was in a brutal depression, and were worse off than much of the world because Germany had just lost WW I. The Nazi party brought hope and for the most part what they did, did actually pull Germany out of the depression. Germany now is one of the strongest economies, and as long as people are happy and not desperate for change or something the current government will be fine. Germany is so stable the only way Nazi party could get power again is if people are stupid and vote them in (or however you guys put people in charge) or a hostile take over which won't happen unless the miltary decides to support it, in which case Britain would prolly bomb Germany.
Pretty much this. The reparations were exceedingly high for the Germans when the Treaty of Versailles was made, and the depression hit Germany very hard. It came to a point where money was so useless that kids used them as "legos" to build houses, and people burning fires with them for warmth. Although the depression and reparations were major parts of why Germany was so vulnerable, but also the genius of Adolf Hitler. Yes, I said genius. I don't think many people will dispute that he was a persuading orator. He inspired hope into Germany after the failed monarchy of Wilhelm II. Germany was looking for a leader, and Adolf presented himself as a capable one. It's no surprise that the Nazis gained more support after Germany actually rebounded from the depression, and of course intimidation. I think its safe to assume that Germany will never go back to such a time in history again. Especially with how all of the other nations would react. This isn't the 1930s-40s where America were isolationists and the Europeans were all scattered. There's the EU now. America is always poking about on foreign policy. I doubt the EU, America, or other nations would allow Germany to become Nazi-dominated again.
This problem isn't limited to Germany, I think it would be better to expand it to the whole of Europe. White nationalists/Extremists are on the rise across the board. Most of their popular support is coming from their Anti-immigration policies which is generally used as a cover for their crazy hatred for different coloured races/origins. The English Defence League in the UK is gaining numbers, likewise for the Dutch with Geerts Wilders. The economic crisis (just like during the 1930's) is also another major influence in their gains.
The best example of the dangerous rise of extremism in Europe is in Greece. Golden Dawn (Neo-nazi's) won a large portion of the vote this recent greek election. This is a video of him expressing his views.
A Greek member of parliament from Golden Dawn on TV:
i would like to point out that stevie keen has predicted that europe will face political crisis if they continue this 'pay debt before caring about people' routine.
the cautionary viewer of the thread may draw any and all connections to war debt and so on
On November 13 2012 00:47 Scorch wrote: You have it good in Germany, with no real right-wing party in parliament and a general zero tolerance consensus against the far right among all political parties. Austria's FPÖ, while not a straight-up nazi party because that would be illegal, is a very real force in Austrian politics. They even were part of the governing coalition from 2000 to 2007 and will probably get around 25% in next year's election. Most alarmingly, the FPÖ is far and away the strongest party among young voters, with 42% of people under 30 voting for them.
and whose fault is that?
Frankly our current goverment is to blame for that 100%. Quite simply put the FPÖ is the only opposition party which seems like a viable option for a "protest" vote against our current gov.
We are so deadlocked and ineffective that sooner or later a new party has to rise. Even if i detest Strache and his collection of idiots, it's easy to see why he is so attractive to voters. All he has to do is stand in front of the media and flat out lie about how everything would be better if he was in power. We'd stop paying for the EU (even if we can't), we'd go back to the Schilling (which is flat out impossible as well) and obviously we'd kick those scumbag greeks!!!
Sadly I'm not kidding, all 3 statements were made by him within the last year. Frankly i consider movements like him more dangerous than 5-10% fringe voters on the far right or far left, mostly because it shows that we are STILL not educating our population well enough for democracy to work.
On November 13 2012 01:11 ppshchik wrote: Germany pretty much gave the moral high ground to the neo Nazis by the time they made Holocaust denial a crime.
Poll: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech (69)
63%
Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (41)
37%
110 total votes
Your vote: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
(Vote): Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (Vote): No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech
of course it can be criminalized. the danger posed by diluting and obfuscating history is clear and grave.
for all the obsession over freedom of speech, put some effort in actually making sensible speech.
On November 13 2012 01:11 ppshchik wrote: Germany pretty much gave the moral high ground to the neo Nazis by the time they made Holocaust denial a crime.
On November 13 2012 01:11 ppshchik wrote: Germany pretty much gave the moral high ground to the neo Nazis by the time they made Holocaust denial a crime.
Poll: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech (69)
63%
Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (41)
37%
110 total votes
Your vote: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
(Vote): Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (Vote): No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech
Yes. And it's the case in France. Holocaust denial is a crime.
On November 13 2012 01:11 ppshchik wrote: Germany pretty much gave the moral high ground to the neo Nazis by the time they made Holocaust denial a crime.
Poll: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech (69)
63%
Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (41)
37%
110 total votes
Your vote: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
(Vote): Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (Vote): No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech
Yep, they did. I think banning people from believing what they want is a very slippery slope, even if what they are believing is factually incorrect or based in superstition.
The sad thing with freedom of speech is that I spend a lot of time defending it, but most of the tine, I find myself either defending Holocaust denial or internet stupidity.
And yeah...the Neo-Nazis have the moral high ground (yet immoral) with Holocaust denial being a crime. They are and have stated that their freedom is being destroyed and they are being persecuted by the government. Funny thing is, they cite George Orwell as their source.
i'm pretty sure there are much less neo-nazis in Germany than those numbers indicate. It all depends on what questions you ask, and what you make of those. For example in west Germany, many people dislike the french. That is somewhat based upon a ton of history of going to war with them, but also based upon them isolating themselves, not trying to learn other languages, being mean to foreigners, different culture etc pp. Now if you would ask people on the street what they think about the french, you will get some responses of disliking them. Are those people right-winged? Do they sympathize with neo-nazis? I don't know. The same case could be made for people from east Germany and Polish people, for example, or islamic people (as the Koran seems to include a lot of holy war, killing people who do not believe, enslaving women etc). So bear in mind that those numbers might not actually reflect that much.
On November 13 2012 01:11 ppshchik wrote: Germany pretty much gave the moral high ground to the neo Nazis by the time they made Holocaust denial a crime.
Poll: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech (69)
63%
Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (41)
37%
110 total votes
Your vote: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
(Vote): Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (Vote): No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech
Well, Holocaust denial or denial of any widely accepted scientific fact usually accompanies slander, lying, and battery against people who are affected by said event. It's just as much a crime as denying black people or women person hood and also making personal actions and judgement calls based on that assumption. Obviously you shouldn't criminalize the speech itself but it's logically coherent that said person would act in the detriment of the interests of other people, and you can criminalize actions taken based on said assumption.
On November 13 2012 01:11 ppshchik wrote: Germany pretty much gave the moral high ground to the neo Nazis by the time they made Holocaust denial a crime.
Poll: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech (69)
63%
Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (41)
37%
110 total votes
Your vote: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
(Vote): Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (Vote): No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech
There's a rather large misconception about holocaust denial laws.
Nobody's ever been incarcerated due to holocaust denial, these laws are only in place to control anti-democratic propaganda.
Your posts suggests that one could land in jail for that, but I could go up to a police-officer, stating that the holocaust never happened and be totally fine. These rules only apply to a political entity or public forums.
A teacher can be sacked for it, a book can be banned for it, a member of parliament will lose their seet for it, but certainly nobody is going to jail for it.
On November 13 2012 00:41 kafkaesque wrote: "Fuck, I can't afford the new iPhone, let's gas some gypsies!"
Hilarious, but also true.
If you imagine the intelligence of the average person and realise that 50% of people are less intelligent it's no surprise that democracy leads to idiots getting publicity. If people aren't happy with your current situation because of problems (real or perceived) then someone telling you that it's all the fault of X is going to get support, especially from those too stupid to actually analyse the claims.
It's a shame that people can suck so much, but we're still doing better than we've been at almost any other point in history so I'm not too concerned.
"Fuck, I can't afford the new iPhone, let's gas some gypsies!"
This made me burst out laughing.
I think the thread title is over-stating the case here tbh.
My thoughts exactly. Also this "study" seems extremely fishy to me. Besides the increase in islamophobia all over Europe I can not really make out any increase in xenophobic/nazi/whatever ideology in the public mindset. I think it's just a case of partisan pollsters (the institute conveying this study is closely affiliated with the social democratic party) being told what to look for and, behold, finding exactly that. And of course the German media gobbles this up because "OH MY, NAZIS!".
On November 13 2012 01:09 Rokit5 wrote: But the antifascist movement in Germany is also very strong? Organistations like antifa and the likes?
Yep, just like somebody above said, when you hear in the news about a neonazi demonstration, there are usually 10 times as much "left guys" (different organisations, including antifa) protesting against it. In politics, the most left winged party called "Die Linke" also gets much more votes than the NPD. (Especially in eastern germany like 3-10 times as much).
9%? That's nothing. Japan actually elect leaders who deny the atrocities in WW2 to positions such as prime minister, Major of big cities, etc. Can you imagine the Major of Berlin denying that the holocaust ever happened?
On November 13 2012 00:36 BluePanther wrote: For all the comments about how America is too far right politically, Europe always has this problem and we never really do.
In Europe, the GOP (or parts of it) would fit that slot nicely.
Not really. It may be "far right", but it's not really a "nationalist" party. Even the GOP embraces legal immigration. I think it's because the idea of being anti-immigration isn't really a feasible concept here due to our history. I think that cuts off a lot of these feelings of someone being an "other" before they become to problematic.
KKK? Tea Party about Muslims? Stormfront ?
EDIT : National Socialist American Workers Freedom Movement?
A few thousand people in a country of 300 million isn't the same. Everyone has nutjobs (KKK and Stormfront and true Socialists). It's just not the same as a truly organized political force.
And while I understand that some on the far right harbor misfeelings towards Muslims, it's just not the same as NPD. We've been basically at war with extremist factions of that religion for a decade now. And nobody that I'm aware of has any sort of political agenda of extermination or forced relocation or denied immigration for followers of that religion. The only remotely close incident was the ground-zero mosque; it was allowed to go through despite fears that it might become a "shrine" to the extremists.
We currently have a economic crisis, so naturally people are more drawn to political extremes (not just Germany, all of Europe. America probably too, but I am not informed about the state of American right extremist movements)
There will always be extremists, sure. But once the economy gets back in order, most people will stop being Nazis (or something along those lines) and get a job instead. Such is the ebb and flow of exremist ideals.
Thing about Japan though is that we forgave a lot of the war criminals, most notably Unit 731 as long as they fought against the commies. Besides, in America and Europe, we are much more connected to Jewish people who have stories to tell. The people from Nanjing do not get as much representation...also, the Japanese government for the longest time denied the atrocities and made themselves victims to American Imperialism and other bullshit.
I think you are misrepresenting today's Germany. Germany today probably has less backing for Nazi ideology than ever before. Just look at how successful the NPD and the DVU (does anyone even still remember them?) were not even 10 years ago. Now they nothing but are a sorry shadow of their former prowess. Where did their voters go to? Certainly not to another extremist party, because there isn't one. Most of them have returned to either conservatives, local far right parties or Die Linke.
You will always have a very low number of people who will still continue to support Nazi ideas. But if anything that number goes continually down in Germany. The reason this is - once again - prominently featured in the media is of course the murders of the "Nazi terrorists" that surfaced last year. It's a sad effect, but essentially we are talking about a "Nazi uprising" because 3 people committed 10 murders over a period of 10 years.
On November 13 2012 00:12 kafkaesque wrote: Hey guys,
given Germany's history, one should think that even the most idiotic and uneducated Germans recognize Hitler's regime for what it was. However, as long as I've been able to read news, Neonazis are gaining in numbers and political strength.
A recent study by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, a foundation to promote democracy, has shown that an alarming number of Germans, to be precise: 9%, embrace far right political views an sympathize with the Nazi-Party or its (rather pathetic and ineffectual) reincarnation: NPD.
In East Germany, the structurally weaker ex-GDR, the numbers are downright terrifying: During the past two years, the number of far right-wings has been more than doubled, from 6.6 to more than 15%. Which makes these numbers more alarming is that those who have been indoctrinated by the original Nazis are virtually extinct, so we're speaking of an entirely new generation of Nazis.
Surely these Neo-Nazis are misled by a cunning political entity?
Far from it. The NPD is a joke, it's not even worth mentioning. Although they have representation in 2/16 state parliaments, with no representation in the federal government, it is extremely hard to take them seriously. Their public appearances are clumsy, borderline comical, and attest a chaotic, haphazard political program without clear direction.
Why is this problematic?
If you grow up in Germany, you will be thoroughly educated about the Nazi Party. The history of the Third Reich is mandatory part of your historical education and secondary schools frequently have week-long projects to further awareness of the horrors of Hitler's Germany. Chances are, you will at one point visit one of the concentration camps of Buchenwald or Auschwitz and schools go through great lenghts to get jewish orators who have witnessed Nazi Germany first hand. History programs on TV eat up that chapter as well and the Federal Agency for Civic Education offers a plethora of different magazines for free so one can educate oneself even further.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
How do other Germans deal with these issues?
German constitution gives anyone including the Nazis the right for public assembly, NPD-member ofttimes gather in large numbers to March for their misguided cause and try to recruit members.
Obviously, the rest of Germany isn't oblivious to those assemblies and since the right-wing-extremists are vastly outnumbered, usually peaceful protest prevents them from marching.
Personal opinion
To be perfectly clear, I don't suggest that in 10 years time we'll go about killing Jews and invading Poland again, I just want to express my anger and sadness that despite comprehensive educational matters and in times of peace of properity, there grows a new generation of antisemetic, antiislamic and antidemocratic young people who sympathise with the demonic Nazi regime.
Points of discussion
- German / Nazi related jokes - Speculation of sources (educational, economic, political etc.) - Right-wing extremists in your own country - etc.
I heavily doubt that 9% of east germans follow a "far right mindset". I'm from eastern germany (Thuringia to be precise), and, I don't feel like there's a big neo-nazi movement here. People may be a bit insecure towards the high rate of immigrants at the moment, but that's nothing unusual. Also seriously, I'm sick of all these articles depicting Eastern Germany this way. It's becoming really boring because it seems like alll of germany just wants to make us look like uneducated idiots :< nobody ever writes about far rights in the western part of germany, because thats "not as cool" as picking on the poorer eastern states. Wtf.
Apart from that, the stats are misleading because the anti-right movement probably never was as strong as it is now.
On November 13 2012 00:38 coma wrote: I'd like to add some parts of the statistics, that OP left out, just to give a better picture.
Most of the people sympathizing with these ideas have a low standard of education (no "Abitur", which is the degree you need to be accepted at universities). People older than 60 are much more likely to be in Agreement. Also, they generally live in areas where they have no contact to migrants.
The actual news here is that the agreement with right-extremist positions has risen from 8.2% to 9% in the course of 2 years. According to my source, the percentage in Eastern Germany was actually 10.2% not 6.6% two years ago
2415 Germans and 95 Non-Germans were questioned.
I really hope this trend doesn't continue.
That's a much better source than the ones in the OP. I like that it actually states which questions were posed. Even the OP misquotes his own source when he says "During the past two years, the number of far right-wings has been more than doubled, from 6.6 to more than 15%." It's actually over 6 years(it says since 2006), and then adds that it has shrunk in west germany (from 9.1 to 7.6), and that the vast majority still prefer democracy over other forms (94.9%, 95.5W 92.1E). It is an issue that the view is gaining traction in the east, but it's not a huge sensationalist number.
Also comparing nazis to neo-nazis is like comparing the black panther party to the new black panthers, they're not the same thing. Even if neo-nazis still suck.
On November 13 2012 01:23 zatic wrote: I think you are misrepresenting today's Germany. Germany today probably has less backing for Nazi ideology than ever before. Just look at how successful the NPD and the DVU (does anyone even still remember them?) were not even 10 years ago. Now they nothing but are a sorry shadow of their former prowess. Where did their voters go to? Certainly not to another extremist party, because there isn't one. Most of them have returned to either conservatives, local far right parties or Die Linke.
You will always have a very low number of people who will still continue to support Nazi ideas. But if anything that number goes continually down in Germany. The reason this is - once again - prominently featured in the media is of course the murders of the "Nazi terrorists" that surfaced last year. It's a sad effect, but essentially we are talking about a "Nazi uprising" because 3 people committed 10 murders over a period of 10 years.
and the more alarming facts: there are already villages that are (more or less) controlled by nazi-like groups. search for the village "Jamel" its located close to the city Wismar in Germany. (german YT-report about the village: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bPJAo1nfGg) Even if you dont understand german, some of the pictures should be alarming enough. Esp. when they show the fireplace with the writing "happy holocaust" on it ...
If you grow up in Germany, you will be thoroughly educated about the Nazi Party. The history of the Third Reich is mandatory part of your historical education and secondary schools frequently have week-long projects to further awareness of the horrors of Hitler's Germany. Chances are, you will at one point visit one of the concentration camps of Buchenwald or Auschwitz and schools go through great lenghts to get jewish orators who have witnessed Nazi Germany first hand. History programs on TV eat up that chapter as well and the Federal Agency for Civic Education offers a plethora of different magazines for free so one can educate oneself even further.
Amazing if true. I look at countries like Japan who are being hated on by their neighbors because they are not educating the general population about WW2 and the atrocities of the Empire of the Rising Sun, and would rather focus on how they are the only victims (Hiroshima/Nagasaki). That's equally as sickening as this. Germans are actually educated about the Nazis!
Well I think people of Japan are educated enough to know what kind of war crimes happened without needed to push to the edge. War is always dirty and WW2 was long war.
OP is making me semi angry and to post the topic like he did, is nothing short than a sensationilistic (?) exagerration which everyone who was your mentioned "abitur" should be able to see.
On November 13 2012 00:12 kafkaesque wrote:
A recent study by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, a foundation to promote democracy, has shown that an alarming number of Germans, to be precise: 9%, embrace far right political views an sympathize with the Nazi-Party or its (rather pathetic and ineffectual) reincarnation: NPD.
"9% embrace far right political views or with the NPD"
If you read statistics like this, you need to ask yourself HOW this was determined. I can pick one or 2 random points of the NPD that arent completly outragous, and surely i will find 9 % who agree.
Without seeing the actual set of questions which determined this statistics, it isnt worth jackshit ( in case they are somewhere here but i overlooked them i severly apologise ).
I am not in any case doubting the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, in fact i know they do good stuff, as i have been there myself, and even volunteered being a "coach" at school informing people about new right movements and parties, so i even worked in a project by them.
However saying 9 % sympathise with the NPD is downright bullshit, seriously, how are you making us look here with your topic man?
I dare you to go to the streets in west germany and show me that roughly every 10th person sympathises with the NPD, i dare you, how can you live in germany and believe that, i dont know, or im massively naive, but i dont think its the latter. As a german who despises NPD etc, cause its nothing less than braindeads, it offends me that other people might think 10 % of us thing this way, which we do not.
Dont believe Statistics unless you know exactly how they were constructed, its one of the first things you learn at uni for examply in Psychology. I dont mean to offend the op, im sorry, just a bit mad at the title which suggests more than 10 % in germany vote npd, i lold at that.
Far fetched from actual reality.
On November 13 2012 01:23 zatic wrote: I think you are misrepresenting today's Germany. Germany today probably has less backing for Nazi ideology than ever before. Just look at how successful the NPD and the DVU (does anyone even still remember them?) were not even 10 years ago. Now they nothing but are a sorry shadow of their former prowess. Where did their voters go to? Certainly not to another extremist party, because there isn't one. Most of them have returned to either conservatives, local far right parties or Die Linke.
You will always have a very low number of people who will still continue to support Nazi ideas. But if anything that number goes continually down in Germany. The reason this is - once again - prominently featured in the media is of course the murders of the "Nazi terrorists" that surfaced last year. It's a sad effect, but essentially we are talking about a "Nazi uprising" because 3 people committed 10 murders over a period of 10 years.
I think this sort of thing comes from stability and peace time. The UK too see's its worrying rise in extremism and racist parties aswell as anti-europe parties (UKIP/BNP/EDL) but the popularity these parties gain is simply driven through people being fed up of not being heard by the major parties.
However once these fringe parties gain traction and some popularity they are soon squashed by the major parties either by them taking there insane policy ideas and making something usuable or by publically humilliating them and there supporters making people who support such parties feel stupid.
Living in a part of the UK that is worrying pro BNP and UKIP this is something that has happened in my area aswell as the UK as a whole and I'm sure Germany for the most part is like that too.
On November 13 2012 00:27 Gretchen wrote: It's the economy, stupid.
Germany may look economically strong compared to the rest of Europe, maybe even the world, but we still have high unemployment rates in exactly the parts of Germany where the Neo-Nazis grow stronger. Economic hardships always breed extremist movements, look at Greece, Eastern Europe or even Russia. They FOUGHT against Nazis in WW2 and now they fly the swastika and march in the streets.
I live in Munich and pretty much never meet any Neo-Nazis, because Munich is one of the richest cities in Germany and Europe. We even have one of the highest percentages of foreign population of big german cities, but there aren't any problems, because there are also enough jobs.
I never understood the part about the economy, since even if you're relatively poor in Germany, you'll still be absolutely prosperous. Being unemployed in Germany makes you wealthier than average wage in many other countries.
As a student, I earn just a little less than a long-term unemployed person on Hartz 4 and I can live very comfortably.
What kind of logic is there supposed to be? "Fuck, I can't afford the new iPhone, let's gas some gypsies!"
Afaik if you fall out of the employment system completely in germany there is almost nothing help-wise for you.
It's a very scary thing. Movement based on hate and separation will always self-destruct though; their paradigm commands it. When Neo-Nazis or similar hate groups say "We hate Jews and people who look different than us" and etc, what they're really saying is "We solve problems with hate and violence".
Why is it, then, that many still contend education will solve all ills? The first thing I hear when there are problems like this is, "We need more education!" Certainly it helps, but is it really the issue?
here unfortunately the shit has hit the fan. The fuckers could be second biggest party pretty soon, they are currently third with 13%. Crisis makes dumb people get dangerous I guess
On November 13 2012 01:34 DemigodcelpH wrote: It's a very scary thing. Movement based on hate and separation will always self-destruct though; their paradigm commands it. When Neo-Nazis or similar hate groups say "We hate Jews and people who look different than us" and etc, what they're really saying is "We solve problems with hate and violence".
On November 13 2012 01:35 danl9rm wrote: Why is it, then, that many still contend education will solve all ills? The first thing I hear when there are problems like this is, "We need more education!" Certainly it helps, but is it really the issue?
wut are you talking about. education efforts are not evenly spread and usually the ones that slip thorugh the crack are the problems.
Tell people not to do something and they're going to do it. When I visited Germany, I thought it was interesting how Hitler's old bunker is essentially just a parking lot now. Our tour guide told us it was to discourage any Neo-Nazis from turning it into a shrine. And with all of the memorials around, it seemed that the country was constantly (and rightly) reminding its citizens to steer clear of that ideology. Nobody likes being told what to think, and everyone likes to feel like they have power. People sympathize with the demonic regime because, for a time, they were powerful.
Though, I think most overlook the fact that a good deal of that power was rooted in the propaganda and theatrics of a weakling. Hitler was a cookie-cutter narcissist who used people as tools to try to accomplish unrealistic goals. Then he killed himself when it was time to face the music. Not a great role model.
I think you can separate the followers of the NPD in roughly 3 groups: 1) Young Neo-Nazis who truly believe in the third reich in the the way it was under hitlers dictatorship because of bad education and the will to have a different and extreme opinion to separate from others.
2) People who dont like the situation who are sick of the "empty talk" of politicians think NPD can change something with their aggressive attitude. These People often dont really think about that it could end in another third reich thought.
3) Older people who have the "back then everything was better" mindset.
So how can this change? I think 3) will solved by time itself. Solving 2) should be the task of the big partys and/or the way the media presents stuff (media seems biased in politic stuff anyways, so why not in a good direction?). What about 1? Well to be honest i dont think you can completly rule out the problem but that should be fine.
On November 13 2012 01:35 danl9rm wrote: Why is it, then, that many still contend education will solve all ills? The first thing I hear when there are problems like this is, "We need more education!" Certainly it helps, but is it really the issue?
You realise that, internally at least, Europe has never been so peaceful as it has these past couple decades, right?
Education doesn't remove all problems, but it does help combat them.
Alot of the right wing ekstremist arent actually 'racist'. (cant offcause be sure, but speak mostly for what I see/hear) In europe its mainly the "muslim problem" people have.
Muslims and europeans cant mix. perhaps its a temporary thing but its excalating quickly. With breivik being the latest & biggest example. Alot of small stuff happens pretty much everyday.
In denmark the latest news is that a community with a majority of muslim voted down christmas for the christian minority. They apparently just spend around $10,000 on an EID fest and wont spend around $1,000 on an x-mas tree.
On November 13 2012 01:32 Velr wrote: I think this is mainly a cause of there not being a (big) anti-EU party.. So protest voters have to go somewhere... Whats left? NPD nutjobs.
But they don't, that's the point. Recently the NPD had a lower turnout than say 8 years ago (When their federal turnout was also just 1.6%). I very much doubt they will manage anything close to that in the elections next year.
Many youths and people in general tend to support NPD-esque partys because they are deeply unsatsified with the current system. They are by no means nazis or even show any sympathy towards hitler. Its just the lack of alternatives and the stupidity of our politicians that drive em towards those partys. I can really understand them...
It is a well known phenomenon whithin german intellectual circles to paint the devil of an imminent takeover of the nazis at the wall at every opportunity. It is an understandable phenomenon and can be explained simply by the fact of how Germany post WWII came to be. Godwins law is unheard of in german discussion, as a matter of fact it´s a basis of discussion in leftist circles. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Germans_%28political_current%29 for the extreme application of this) There will be no takeover in germany or indeed anywhere of actual neo-nazis. That brand is burned...
The second is that the constant information about nazi crimes which is a fact of life when growing up german speaking (G, A, CH). Not even ridicule of the nazis is allowed in a polite discussion, because it might detract from the crimes which are the fundation of the self consciousness of german speaking nations. This has lead to a curious attraction to the nazis by the rejects of society, mainly for their achievements. Since a "normal" relation towards this part of our history is impossible and the barrage of documentories special features and generally feeling sorry for that part of our history is what you are subjected to, some individuals reject it outright and become neo nazies.
But i would classify the phenomenon of actual neo nazies as a fringe, more akin to satanism than a political movement empowering themselves by identifying with societies absolute evil.
The New right (LePen, Haider, Wilders, EDF) is a much bigger threat and they stay well away from actual nazi symbols, which is what makes them dangerous. Greece is a special case however...
On November 13 2012 01:32 Velr wrote: I think this is mainly a cause of there not being a (big) anti-EU party.. So protest voters have to go somewhere... Whats left? NPD nutjobs.
But they don't, that's the point. Recently the NPD had a lower turnout than say 8 years ago (When their federal turnout was also just 1.6%). I very much doubt they will manage anything close to that in the elections next year.
this exactly. No idea how they're getting those 9%. If that'd be the case the nutjobs should have more people supporting them, shouldn't they?
And I'd say there's already a bunch of deluded idiots in there who have no idea what they're doing and just want to do something different/weird for the sake of doing something different/weird.
On November 13 2012 01:36 WP_Insanity wrote: I think you can separate the followers of the NPD in roughly 3 groups: 1) Young Neo-Nazis who truly believe in the third reich in the the way it was under hitlers dictatorship because of bad education and the will to have a different and extreme opinion to separate from others.
2) People who dont like the situation who are sick of the "empty talk" of politicians think NPD can change something with their aggressive attitude. These People often dont really think about that it could end in another third reich thought.
3) Older people who have the "back then everything was better" mindset.
So how can this change? I think 3) will solved by time itself. Solving 2) should be the task of the big partys and/or the way the media presents stuff (media seems biased in politic stuff anyways, so why not in a good direction?). What about 1? Well to be honest i dont think you can completly rule out the problem but that should be fine.
What "Good old times" would older people remember? The 20s? The 30s? The 6 years of war, 10 years of rebuilding destroyed cities and 40 years of US and Soviet occupation?
Or are there like, 130 year olds I haven't heard of that still remember the days of Wilhelms.
As simple as it may sound: increasing crisis = increasing extremist party.
You can educate people as much as you want, if your people struggle to get a decent living condition (a job that can allow them to take care of their family and such), they will embrace extremist option for most of them.
well i am german, in germany the "nazi" parties get like 1-3% on elections, in hungary, france, finland etc etc the right parties get like 30 sometimes even more % ... and still everyone in germany is crying i cant hear it anymore ... 1-3% !!!!!!!!!!!! we make like we will die all when they sometimes get 5% in the poorest cities of the whole country and get in the parlament ... damn i saw a card of right parties and their % with colors in europe, germany was the only one white with <5% ... i never meet a nazi in 26 years ... well ofc every day in news because ... STOP
I don't think neonazis are the real problem nowadays. Because of nazi history and their current image, they will never be able to become bigger than a group of fringe extremists. The problem are the right-wing xenophobic populist parties which have an image of being legitimate and intellectual, even though the basic ideas are terrible. In sweden, we have SD, the swedish democrats. They are powerful enough to get spots in the parliament based on their views on immigration and Islamism. The main problem, I feel, is that the traditional swedish parties do not even want to touch the subject of immigration, because it leaves such a bad taste for "normal" voters, but their lack of stance on the issue makes it seem like the swedish democrats are actually bringing something new and important.
What we need is proper handling on issues of immigration etc, which lets voters make a clear stance. You don't have to be a xenophobe to realize immigration is a big issue which can be handled in many different ways.
I just want to play devils advocate for a moment but maybe it's a bit hard not to look back at the early days of the Nazi Regime and see how it could be beneficial in some ways. Perhaps some of these people are not so much for the killing of jews and antisemitism but for the National Socialism and the absolutely unprecedented and, in my opinion, still unmatched level of economic growth it gave for the German people.
And how can you blame them? Look at the economic situation in Europe. Two years ago we had the greatest recession since the Great Depression and it hit Europe just as hard. Germany is having to pick up all the slack for the rest of the EU and it's starting to get to them, and some people are looking back at how NSDAP saved the German Economy 80 years ago.
With that said, I do not believe Nazi-ism is the answer to any economic issue nor do I think National Socialism is a good economic system for anything other than a wartime economy, but I think that might play into the mindset of some of these people.
Isnt this a function of the poverty of the East and the negative attitudes the Westerns have towards the Easterners? Just the way that Greek Nazis or Russian Nazis or Ukrainian Nazis or Croatian Nazis or Serbian Nazis all rose up and were most influential during the deepest periods of economic crisis?
Anyway, its a downright shame that the Germans havent been able to eradicate Nazism completely but ultimately its just a manifestation of human asshattery and that never goes out of style, at best it can be suppressed. Quite frankly, I am not a fan of Germans but I always respect their ability to come to terms with WW2 and do it in a responsible manner. Much better than the Japanese, the Canadians the Americans, the Brits or the Russians re: whole sale slaughter and/or enslavement of people.
As for the whole "Nazis will rise up and replay WW2" that ship has sailed.
On November 13 2012 01:51 Fruscainte wrote: I just want to play devils advocate for a moment but maybe it's a bit hard not to look back at the early days of the Nazi Regime and see how it could be beneficial in some ways. Perhaps some of these people are not so much for the killing of jews and antisemitism but for the National Socialism and the absolutely unprecedented and, in my opinion, still unmatched level of economic growth it gave for the German people.
And how can you blame them? Look at the economic situation in Europe. Two years ago we had the greatest recession since the Great Depression and it hit Europe just as hard. Germany is having to pick up all the slack for the rest of the EU and it's starting to get to them, and some people are looking back at how NSDAP saved the German Economy 80 years ago.
With that said, I do not believe Nazi-ism is the answer to any economic issue nor do I think National Socialism is a good economic system for anything other than a wartime economy, but I think that might play into the mindset of some of these people.
Ya. Except, the economic growth did not benefit the people. All that the Nazis managed to do was run up their inflation and put a lot of guys to 'work' by getting them into uniforms or into factories making the uniforms and tanks. Private businesses whose bosses were so cooperative with the Nazis benefited on paper but even they werent allowed to use their wealth for anything but reinvestment back into the armaments industry. By 1936 the German experiment was running out of cash. The annexations of Austria and the Czech portions of Czechoslovakia transferred valuable loot to the Germans that kept them going. So did the Soviet-Nazi pact.
Skinheads are not Nazis, they're just hooligans and criminals with swastikas. They're too dumb and incompetent to ever accomplish anything even close to the Third Reich. That doesn't mean that a simple club can't cause harm, but it's far less than what a machinegun could do.
On November 13 2012 01:51 Fruscainte wrote: I just want to play devils advocate for a moment but maybe it's a bit hard not to look back at the early days of the Nazi Regime and see how it could be beneficial in some ways. Perhaps some of these people are not so much for the killing of jews and antisemitism but for the National Socialism and the absolutely unprecedented and, in my opinion, still unmatched level of economic growth it gave for the German people.
And how can you blame them? Look at the economic situation in Europe. Two years ago we had the greatest recession since the Great Depression and it hit Europe just as hard. Germany is having to pick up all the slack for the rest of the EU and it's starting to get to them, and some people are looking back at how NSDAP saved the German Economy 80 years ago.
With that said, I do not believe Nazi-ism is the answer to any economic issue nor do I think National Socialism is a good economic system for anything other than a wartime economy, but I think that might play into the mindset of some of these people.
It actually wasn´t even for a wartime economy, but this kind of nuanced discussion is impossible in modern day germany because of the taboos that still govern discussion. This pedestal actually makes them attractive for a certain fringe hence the satanism comparison...
9% of any countries' population is probably willfully ignorant to a disgusting level. the 9% furthest 'right' in the US are bible-thumping, bigoted, over-nationalistic idiots that give us a bad name, particularly in Europe. (when in reality most right voters are just brainwashed that they can become rich and dont want to pay taxes in future or super selfish and not really as dumb)
9% most right people in india run religious tv networks, do staged interviews, actually postulate that india has a stronger energy industry than saudi arabia, etc...
It's just sensationalist crap journalism in my opinion. I'm fed up of the terms right and left wing: they are meaningless and out of date. From the article: "The Immortals, for example - anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist and anti-democratic" - that could just as easily describe a bunch of hippies! They then compare that (by proxy) with a crazy terrorist cell. I hate articles like that; it's just so dumb.
Neo nazis at least finland seem to be generally poor, often have mental illnesses, drug addicts, are on average less intelligent and social outcasts/dropouts that often have/feel like they have nothing to lose, so they cling on to this ideology to feel more worthy and to gain more power over others. Also some of them just simply seem to enjoy/are used to the feeling of hate and to be hated.
I think we dont have too many of them, but what i hear is that numbers are slowly growing. In my opinion this is due to growing unemployement and growing drug abuse (some drugs like meth is sold by local neo nazis so their customers often become followers)
A recent study by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, a foundation to promote democracy, has shown that an alarming number of Germans, to be precise: 9%, embrace far right political views an sympathize with the Nazi-Party or its (rather pathetic and ineffectual) reincarnation: NPD.
ONE recent study, which could be totally wrong (aka never trust a statistic you didn't faked youself)! I highly doubt the 9%, maybe in some (very very few) regions but never overall. You should at least link the source to these statistic not just linking spiegel-online.
Don't get me wrong, I think we have to be aware of upcoming parties from the right wing. BUT they will never gain any significant political influence anytime soon.
I would have preferred a question mark behind your thread title.
"Your political ideology is one I disagree with. Other people who subscribed to this ideology took it too far. Therefore, no one shall ever have this ideology again."
It's a bit over the top to assume that everyone who is a modern day national socialist is therefore anti-semitic or pro-aryan or whatever. People have every right to support an ideology of unity and national pride if they so wish. When that comes down to race issues the problem arises, but it's foolish to assume that all of the 15% of these people is an anti-Semite who wishes the Nazis were back and the Holocaust never stopped.
The sad reality that so many national socialists mistakenly believe in anti-Semitism or whatever is another debate entirely. But if people are sick of the bullshit politics in the western world and want to have something a little more potent, I can't sit here and judge them for it, let alone call them neo-Nazis.
On November 13 2012 01:11 ppshchik wrote: Germany pretty much gave the moral high ground to the neo Nazis by the time they made Holocaust denial a crime.
Poll: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech (69)
63%
Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (41)
37%
110 total votes
Your vote: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
(Vote): Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (Vote): No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech
There's a rather large misconception about holocaust denial laws.
Nobody's ever been incarcerated due to holocaust denial, these laws are only in place to control anti-democratic propaganda.
Your posts suggests that one could land in jail for that, but I could go up to a police-officer, stating that the holocaust never happened and be totally fine. These rules only apply to a political entity or public forums.
A teacher can be sacked for it, a book can be banned for it, a member of parliament will lose their seet for it, but certainly nobody is going to jail for it.
That's not true. Why would you make such a claim?
Laws against holocaust denial ban... holocaust denial. People get punished under those laws for research or opinions which are contrary to officially sanctioned holocaust dogma.
For example Germar Rudolf served 3 years in prison for publishing a scientific paper on the gas chambers of Auschwitz. There is nothing political or anti-Democratic about it. It's just a scientific paper.
You should read it yourself to understand what exactly is being criminalized in your country. Unless of course it is illegal for you to read it? Then I wonder: how can you know it is okay to imprison people for years on thought crime charges if you don't understand what thoughts are criminalized?
The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/
Three years in prison. For writing a scientific paper.
On November 13 2012 01:11 ppshchik wrote: Germany pretty much gave the moral high ground to the neo Nazis by the time they made Holocaust denial a crime.
Poll: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech (69)
63%
Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (41)
37%
110 total votes
Your vote: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
(Vote): Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (Vote): No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech
There's a rather large misconception about holocaust denial laws.
Nobody's ever been incarcerated due to holocaust denial, these laws are only in place to control anti-democratic propaganda.
Your posts suggests that one could land in jail for that, but I could go up to a police-officer, stating that the holocaust never happened and be totally fine. These rules only apply to a political entity or public forums.
A teacher can be sacked for it, a book can be banned for it, a member of parliament will lose their seet for it, but certainly nobody is going to jail for it.
That's not true. Why would you make such a claim?
Laws against holocaust denial ban... holocaust denial. People get punished under those laws for research or opinions which are contrary to officially sanctioned holocaust dogma.
For example Germar Rudolf served 3 years in prison for publishing a scientific paper on the gas chambers of Auschwitz. There is nothing political or anti-Democratic about it. It's just a scientific paper.
You should read it yourself to understand what exactly is being criminalized in your country. Unless of course it is illegal for you to read it? Then I wonder: how can you know it is okay to imprison people for years on thought crime charges if you don't understand what thoughts are criminalized?
The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/
Three years in prison. For writing a scientific paper.
While I agree with you that scientists shouldn't be subject to this crap, come on. What did he expect publishing a paper about the finer technical aspects of gas chambers in Germany.
On November 13 2012 01:11 ppshchik wrote: Germany pretty much gave the moral high ground to the neo Nazis by the time they made Holocaust denial a crime.
Poll: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech (69)
63%
Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (41)
37%
110 total votes
Your vote: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
(Vote): Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (Vote): No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech
There's a rather large misconception about holocaust denial laws.
Nobody's ever been incarcerated due to holocaust denial, these laws are only in place to control anti-democratic propaganda.
Your posts suggests that one could land in jail for that, but I could go up to a police-officer, stating that the holocaust never happened and be totally fine. These rules only apply to a political entity or public forums.
A teacher can be sacked for it, a book can be banned for it, a member of parliament will lose their seet for it, but certainly nobody is going to jail for it.
That's not true. Why would you make such a claim?
Laws against holocaust denial ban... holocaust denial. People get punished under those laws for research or opinions which are contrary to officially sanctioned holocaust dogma.
For example Germar Rudolf served 3 years in prison for publishing a scientific paper on the gas chambers of Auschwitz. There is nothing political or anti-Democratic about it. It's just a scientific paper.
You should read it yourself to understand what exactly is being criminalized in your country. Unless of course it is illegal for you to read it? Then I wonder: how can you know it is okay to imprison people for years on thought crime charges if you don't understand what thoughts are criminalized?
The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/
Three years in prison. For writing a scientific paper.
You left out that Germar Rudolf is a holocaust denier, and if you look at the sources for this "scientific paper" they link to works published by holocaust deniers. I'm not saying it's right to imprison someone for holding a belief, but don't pretend this was some guy innocently publishing an objective scientific paper.
On November 13 2012 01:36 WP_Insanity wrote: I think you can separate the followers of the NPD in roughly 3 groups: 1) Young Neo-Nazis who truly believe in the third reich in the the way it was under hitlers dictatorship because of bad education and the will to have a different and extreme opinion to separate from others.
2) People who dont like the situation who are sick of the "empty talk" of politicians think NPD can change something with their aggressive attitude. These People often dont really think about that it could end in another third reich thought.
3) Older people who have the "back then everything was better" mindset.
So how can this change? I think 3) will solved by time itself. Solving 2) should be the task of the big partys and/or the way the media presents stuff (media seems biased in politic stuff anyways, so why not in a good direction?). What about 1? Well to be honest i dont think you can completly rule out the problem but that should be fine.
What "Good old times" would older people remember? The 20s? The 30s? The 6 years of war, 10 years of rebuilding destroyed cities and 40 years of US and Soviet occupation?
Or are there like, 130 year olds I haven't heard of that still remember the days of Wilhelms.
Maybe they are old enough to remember the miraculous economic recovery that took place as a result of National Socialist policies, and the brief but booming and prosperous time before Britain and France declared war? You post so confidently about a subject where your knowledge seems to be severely lacking.
How Hitler Tackled Unemployment And Revived Germany’s Economy
[...]
As he had promised, Hitler and his National Socialist government banished unemployment within four years. The number of jobless was cut from six million at the beginning of 1933, when he took power, to one million by 1936. / 7 So rapidly was the jobless rate reduced that by 1937-38 there was a national labor shortage. / 8
For the great mass of Germans, wages and working conditions improved steadily. From 1932 to 1938 gross real weekly earnings increased by 21 percent. After taking into account tax and insurance deductions and adjustments to the cost of living, the increase in real weekly earnings during this period was 14 percent. At the same time, rents remained stable, and there was a relative decline in the costs of heating and light. Prices actually declined for some consumer goods, such as electrical appliances, clocks and watches, as well as for some foods. "Consumer prices rose at an average annual rate of just 1.2 percent between 1933 and 1939," notes British historian Niall Ferguson. "This meant that Germans workers were better off in real as well as nominal terms: between 1933 and 1938, weekly net earnings (after tax) rose by 22 percent, while the cost of living rose by just seven percent." Even after the outbreak of war in September 1939, workers’ income continued to rise. By 1943 average hourly earnings of German workers had risen by 25 percent, and weekly earnings by 41 percent. / 9
The “normal” work day for most Germans was eight hours, and pay for overtime work was generous. / 10 In addition to higher wages, benefits included markedly improved working conditions, such as better health and safety conditions, canteens with subsidized hot meals, athletic fields, parks, subsidized theater performances and concerts, exhibitions, sports and hiking groups, dances, adult education courses, and subsidized tourism. / 11 An already extensive network of social welfare programs, including old age insurance and a national health care program, was expanded.
Hitler wanted Germans to have “the highest possible standard of living,” he said in an interview with an American journalist in early 1934. “In my opinion, the Americans are right in not wanting to make everyone the same but rather in upholding the principle of the ladder. However, every single person must be granted the opportunity to climb up the ladder.” / 12 In keeping with this outlook, Hitler’s government promoted social mobility, with wide opportunities to improve and advance. As Prof. Garraty notes: “It is beyond argument that the Nazis encouraged working-class social and economic mobility.” To encourage acquisition of new skills, the government greatly expanded vocational training programs, and offered generous incentives for further advancement of efficient workers. / 13
Both National Socialist ideology and Hitler’s basic outlook, writes historian John Garraty, “inclined the regime to favor the ordinary German over any elite group. Workers … had an honored place in the system.” In accord with this, the regime provided substantive fringe benefits for workers that included subsidized housing, low-cost excursions, sports programs, and more pleasing factory facilities. / 14
In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, historian Joachim Fest acknowledged: “The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to rise, it in fact demonstrated class neutrality … These measures did indeed break through the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved the material condition of much of the population.” / 15
A few figures give an idea of how the quality of life improved. Between 1932, the last year of the pre-Hitler era, and 1938, the last full year before the outbreak of war, food consumption increased by one sixth, while clothing and textile turnover increased by more than a quarter, and of furniture and household goods by 50 percent. / 16 During the Third Reich’s peacetime years, wine consumption rose by 50 percent, and champagne consumption increased five-fold. / 17 Between 1932 and 1938, the volume of tourism more than doubled, while automobile ownership during the 1930s tripled. / 18 German motor vehicle production, which included cars made by the US-owned Ford and General Motors (Opel) works, doubled in the five years of 1932 to 1937, while Germany’s motor vehicle exports increased eight-fold. Air passenger traffic in Germany more than tripled from 1933 to 1937. / 19
German business revived and prospered. During the first four years of the National Socialist era, net profits of large corporations quadrupled, and managerial and entrepreneurial income rose by nearly 50 percent. / 20 Between 1933 and 1938, notes historian Niall Ferguson, Germany's "gross domestic product grew, on average, by a remarkable eleven percent a year," with no significant increase in the rate of inflation. / 21 “Things were to get even better,” writes Jewish historian Richard Grunberger in his detailed study, The Twelve-Year Reich. “In the three years between 1939 and 1942 German industry expanded as much as it had during the preceding fifty years.” / 20
Our system is cracking and extremely stupid mentality tends to come with crysis. In Italy, Greece and east-european countries there has been a lot of the same shit - our economic system is fucking people over, newsflash: people are losing all they have from one day to another. It is already time to wake up. We(the people) need to make it stop. I think we have come to a decisive hour in human history, will we embrace hate or love? Will we embrace division or union? We can't let ourselves be blinded by imaginary lines! Raise your kids to love all people, don't ignore xenophobia, racism, sexism, homophobia, fight those for if we can't accept other people how will we care for them? And if we don't care for them why would they care for us?
Here in my city there are some gay-bashing, anarchopunk-bashing skinheads - sometimes I can't even go to some places with the clothes I'd like to go because of that, and think about it this happens to all women. It is not only about "innocent nationalistic pride", and "innocent racial-ethnic" pride. This all comes donw to some kind of exclusive behavior. And this is fucking our society for too long! Caring for other's people welfare won't make you worse but not caring will make us live in a shitty place where we can't come and go as we please. Embrace your individuality, but fuck individualism.
PS: urgh nazi apologists making me throw up a little bit in my mouth.
Why should this be surprising, fascism has historically always had at least 15% of the public behind it. Many people are scum.
I can't really fathom the deeper psychological reasoning behind this though, maybe it has to do with fancying that Germany was 'strong' during the Nazi era. Or maybe it is about deliberately provoking authority figures that look down on nazism?
On November 13 2012 00:16 solidbebe wrote: Neonazis make me feel sick to the stomach. Worst part of it are the people who know exactly what happened with Hitler and are still neonazis. Scum of the earth...
I guess fucked up people will always be around, its when they get to power that things go wrong.
Nazis have nothing against the Jews that was strictly Hitler, so whats your big problem with them?
Interesting to note is table 2.4.1 (p54) where the 9% is coming from and that while it increased compared to 2010 and 2008, we're still below 2002 & 2004. It also clearly shows how it's a bigger problem in eastern Germany (big surge in the last 2 years, double the value from 10 years ago) while western Germany is staying constant.
The questions used are on p 29 & p30.
Another interesting thing: People (living in Germany) without German citizenship have a higher primary antisemitism rate compared to people with German citizenship (p111, table 3.4.8). (questions page 78). On the other hand a ~24% rate of secondary antisemitism for people with German citizenship (and no immigration background). For those who are clueless like me: "Due the ideas of Jews there is always dispute" = primary "Due to Israeli politics, I dislike Jews more and more" = primary "I'm sick of hearing from German crimes against the Jews" = secondary "We should focus on current problems, and not on events from 60 years ago" = secondary
On November 13 2012 00:16 solidbebe wrote: Neonazis make me feel sick to the stomach. Worst part of it are the people who know exactly what happened with Hitler and are still neonazis. Scum of the earth...
I guess fucked up people will always be around, its when they get to power that things go wrong.
Nazis have nothing against the Jews that was strictly Hitler, so whats your big problem with them?
Nazi(fascism is general..) ideology believes that force is the way to go. I think that's shitty and make the world a shitty place to live, you can't have freedom if you're afraid people are gonna kill you because of the way you look.
On November 13 2012 00:32 Osmoses wrote: I believe you are misreading the data. I very much doubt 15% of east-germans think of themselves as "neo-nazis" or even "far-right". If it's anything, it's less about being a jew-hater and more about discontent regarding the current policies on immigration. There is currently this terribly popular idea in the media that the muslims, or islamists, are taking over Europe, and that eventually the whole world will be come Iran.
While the media coverage may be somewhat exaggerated, I do feel much like alot of other people, in my country and yours, that my own country is becoming less and less mine every time there is a mosque built or a compromise made in parliament for "sensitivity towards immigrants". I don't hate immigrants, I don't hate muslims, but I can't help but feel angry when they come into my country and demand more and more "rights" while at the same time refusing to assimilate.
At the same time, I recognize that this is a somewhat demonized image of immigrants. Of course they are not all a collective group of dicks that come into another man's house and make demands. The vocal minority always give the majority a bad rap. And as long as I do not have to give up freedoms of my own, what's the harm in anything anyone else does? Either way, if I want to hear people shouting praise of Allah from the rooftops, I'd sooner go to Afghanistan than have to hear it in my own country, where I have my own culture and traditions.
I may have rambled a bit but TL:DR => people are not nazis just because they feel unease at the growing amount of foreign influences in their countries.
So what party did you vote for? Just curious. Because if you feel that way, and it's an important political aspect for you, you basically have no other choice but to vote for the NPD. (Thing is, you basically can't vote for them because they can't be taken serious by anyone.) And i feel like that's a big problem.
The two largest parties in Sweden are the Socialdemocrats and Moderaterna. The Socialdemocrats are more socialist than Moderaterna but both are pretty red imo. I voted for Moderaterna, because economic stability is more important to me than immigration. Though I resent it, I realize that 100 years from now, Sweden will be nothing like it is now, it's the way it's always been and the way it's always gonna be. Things change.
You can't understand racist people for the simple fact that they don't understand themselves why they are. I tried to talk sometimes with people from my college class, asking why they were voting for the FN (racist french party). They could not justify anything, aside from blaming arabs for a lot of things blacks, white and whatever do as much. This kind of people just needs to blame a community for the things that go wrong, and don't bother or can't seriously think about the why and who of said things. You also have the kind of people that need to pick an "ideal" to feel like they exist, and some sadly pick those ones. They don't have a reason, nor real convictions about the ideas that are supposed to be tied to this, they just need to feel like they are thinking and fighting for something. See all those 20 years old people that go to meetings and sell t shirts and whatnot for politicals that don't give a damn about them.
The real scary thing about that, is that those people don't think like they should, therefore they sadly categorize more and more as animals than humans. I mean, how can you nowadays be "educated" (everybody goes a bit to school and knows what happened in WW2 and about all those retarded ethnic conflicts still going on around the world, right?), and still be neo nazi or whatever? Because you are dumb as fuck, pretentious and irresponsible. You never learned any notion of humanity or respect, not talking about philosophy or actually thinking about why you are doing/thinking things.
That's what scares me. While I can try and understand what got people caught in the nazi propaganda before WW2 (less education, less awareness of media's potential disinformation, plus economic crisis and debts from WW1, hatred from loss of WW1), the only reason I can put on people going the same way nowadays is utter stupidity.
So yeah, maybe school should focus on teaching people how to be people, as it seems many parents are unable to. Culture is not intelligence. And it's sad that humanity doesn't evolve in the right way, which is in my opinion having each individual capable of a proper reflection about things. But that may be against the interest of both politicals, commercials and financials.
(if anybody reads this, sorry for the potential awful english, some sentences may not make any sense as I never had to use some expressions and had no clue how to translate some things \o/)
On November 13 2012 01:11 ppshchik wrote: Germany pretty much gave the moral high ground to the neo Nazis by the time they made Holocaust denial a crime.
Poll: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech (69)
63%
Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (41)
37%
110 total votes
Your vote: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
(Vote): Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (Vote): No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech
There's a rather large misconception about holocaust denial laws.
Nobody's ever been incarcerated due to holocaust denial, these laws are only in place to control anti-democratic propaganda.
Your posts suggests that one could land in jail for that, but I could go up to a police-officer, stating that the holocaust never happened and be totally fine. These rules only apply to a political entity or public forums.
A teacher can be sacked for it, a book can be banned for it, a member of parliament will lose their seet for it, but certainly nobody is going to jail for it.
That's not true. Why would you make such a claim?
Laws against holocaust denial ban... holocaust denial. People get punished under those laws for research or opinions which are contrary to officially sanctioned holocaust dogma.
For example Germar Rudolf served 3 years in prison for publishing a scientific paper on the gas chambers of Auschwitz. There is nothing political or anti-Democratic about it. It's just a scientific paper.
You should read it yourself to understand what exactly is being criminalized in your country. Unless of course it is illegal for you to read it? Then I wonder: how can you know it is okay to imprison people for years on thought crime charges if you don't understand what thoughts are criminalized?
The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/
Three years in prison. For writing a scientific paper.
While I agree with you that scientists shouldn't be subject to this crap, come on. What did he expect publishing a paper about the finer technical aspects of gas chambers in Germany.
Maybe he expected countries with free speech like America would give him asylum? After all, he was deported to Germany to be imprisoned there.
I bet if a Muslim was facing speech crime laws in their home country they would not be deported. Instead they would given asylum to protect them from such backwards totalitarian laws.
On November 13 2012 01:11 ppshchik wrote: Germany pretty much gave the moral high ground to the neo Nazis by the time they made Holocaust denial a crime.
Poll: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech (69)
63%
Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (41)
37%
110 total votes
Your vote: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
(Vote): Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (Vote): No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech
There's a rather large misconception about holocaust denial laws.
Nobody's ever been incarcerated due to holocaust denial, these laws are only in place to control anti-democratic propaganda.
Your posts suggests that one could land in jail for that, but I could go up to a police-officer, stating that the holocaust never happened and be totally fine. These rules only apply to a political entity or public forums.
A teacher can be sacked for it, a book can be banned for it, a member of parliament will lose their seet for it, but certainly nobody is going to jail for it.
That's not true. Why would you make such a claim?
Laws against holocaust denial ban... holocaust denial. People get punished under those laws for research or opinions which are contrary to officially sanctioned holocaust dogma.
For example Germar Rudolf served 3 years in prison for publishing a scientific paper on the gas chambers of Auschwitz. There is nothing political or anti-Democratic about it. It's just a scientific paper.
You should read it yourself to understand what exactly is being criminalized in your country. Unless of course it is illegal for you to read it? Then I wonder: how can you know it is okay to imprison people for years on thought crime charges if you don't understand what thoughts are criminalized?
The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/
Three years in prison. For writing a scientific paper.
You left out that Germar Rudolf is a holocaust denier, and if you look at the sources for this "scientific paper" they link to works published by holocaust deniers. I'm not saying it's right to imprison someone for holding a belief, but don't pretend this was some guy innocently publishing an objective scientific paper.
As I said, he was punished for holocaust denial. Someone claimed there are no punishments for holocaust denial, when that is clearly not even close to being true.
The paper itself is very objective and well done. Germar obviously cites some skeptical sources, but much of his paper involves firsthand chemical testing done by himself and exterminationist sources. He addresses exterminationist claims and studies directly. I encourage you to read it so you can understand what points of view are being criminalized.
The only attempt I have ever seen to rebut The Rudolf Report is a paper by Richard Green which Rudolf replied to. They had an exchange of a few articles. I highly encourage you to read the original Rudolf Report, followed by these articles in order.
Frankly after reading these articles I can't help but think holocaust denial laws are passed because exterminationists wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they couldn't "win" arguments by imprisoning their opponent. Germar Rudolf comes across as intelligent, reasonable, and scientifically minded. Green comes across as vitriolic, evasive, and deliberately deceptive.
The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz (Rudolf) http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/
9%? Why not quote the important figure. 36,2% are extremely against islam and 60,2% are critical of islam. The rise of people willing to vote the idiotic far right parties is because no other party recognizes the majority of the population. We are getting fed bullshit about integration and culturally enriching immigrants that are nowhere near recognizing the reality of the situation.
On November 13 2012 01:11 ppshchik wrote: Germany pretty much gave the moral high ground to the neo Nazis by the time they made Holocaust denial a crime.
Poll: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech (69)
63%
Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (41)
37%
110 total votes
Your vote: Should Holocaust denial be considered a crime?
(Vote): Yes, Holocaust deniers should be in jail (Vote): No, Holocaust denial laws are against freedom of speech
There's a rather large misconception about holocaust denial laws.
Nobody's ever been incarcerated due to holocaust denial, these laws are only in place to control anti-democratic propaganda.
Your posts suggests that one could land in jail for that, but I could go up to a police-officer, stating that the holocaust never happened and be totally fine. These rules only apply to a political entity or public forums.
A teacher can be sacked for it, a book can be banned for it, a member of parliament will lose their seet for it, but certainly nobody is going to jail for it.
That's not true. Why would you make such a claim?
Laws against holocaust denial ban... holocaust denial. People get punished under those laws for research or opinions which are contrary to officially sanctioned holocaust dogma.
For example Germar Rudolf served 3 years in prison for publishing a scientific paper on the gas chambers of Auschwitz. There is nothing political or anti-Democratic about it. It's just a scientific paper.
You should read it yourself to understand what exactly is being criminalized in your country. Unless of course it is illegal for you to read it? Then I wonder: how can you know it is okay to imprison people for years on thought crime charges if you don't understand what thoughts are criminalized?
The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/
Three years in prison. For writing a scientific paper.
The report you bring up here is proven to be full of fake evidence. Most people even doubt that the samples he used in his report were real. And he not only published 1 book, he published 8 books talking about the "auschwitz lies" He also hosted nazi-website in the USA. And it wasnt 3 years in prison and it wasnt only for writing a "scientific paper". You sir just defended a hatefull nazi who actually never was interessted in scientific work.
This is the best example why holocaust denial should stay forbidden in germany. Everyone who does it, simply does it to spread hate. And this is the prime example for "Volksverhetzung", spreading lies and hate that lead to racist violent attacks.
On November 13 2012 00:31 Raggamuffinoo wrote: National Socialist German Workers' Party. Socialism is still prevelant throughout the world. It is no surprise that it is in Germany or Greece or America or anywhere.
Next time socialism trys its hand at world domination, it will not be by force, but by coercion and subversion. The more citizens rely on social funding etc, the more power the local government has over the individual.
A solution to this would be for every individual to decline such handouts whenever possible and be responsible in commerce and contracts, knowing their rights and responsibilities and fighting tooth and nail whenever social programs are introduced to replace existing models.
Edit: People seem to think Nazi means "far right", I argue that the opposite is true. Their objectives require government to be a surrogate parent to citizens.
I've always found this, usually libertarian view point, that Nazi's were left winger's eccentric and baseless to conform to there own world view. That being that any government that puts constraints on individual freedom is branded left-wing (unless its enforcing property rights!)
The basic raison d'etre of socialism/the left is egalitarianism. By what means this is achieved, be it stateless social anarchism, communist totalitarianism or democratic social democracy, the goal is basically always to decrease the inequality gap between divisions in society and alleviate the worst off in society. At least in theory.
Nazi's are literally the polar opposite of egalitarian values. There fundamental end goal was to impose strict differences on race, gender, nationality, religion and promote corporate monopoly's on wealth. Most of there flagship policy's on immigration, nationalism, commerce and culture are traditional conservative policy's taken to there ultimate extremes.
On November 13 2012 01:36 WP_Insanity wrote: I think you can separate the followers of the NPD in roughly 3 groups: 1) Young Neo-Nazis who truly believe in the third reich in the the way it was under hitlers dictatorship because of bad education and the will to have a different and extreme opinion to separate from others.
2) People who dont like the situation who are sick of the "empty talk" of politicians think NPD can change something with their aggressive attitude. These People often dont really think about that it could end in another third reich thought.
3) Older people who have the "back then everything was better" mindset.
So how can this change? I think 3) will solved by time itself. Solving 2) should be the task of the big partys and/or the way the media presents stuff (media seems biased in politic stuff anyways, so why not in a good direction?). What about 1? Well to be honest i dont think you can completly rule out the problem but that should be fine.
What "Good old times" would older people remember? The 20s? The 30s? The 6 years of war, 10 years of rebuilding destroyed cities and 40 years of US and Soviet occupation?
Or are there like, 130 year olds I haven't heard of that still remember the days of Wilhelms.
Maybe they are old enough to remember the miraculous economic recovery that took place as a result of National Socialist policies, and the brief but booming and prosperous time before Britain and France declared war? You post so confidently about a subject where your knowledge seems to be severely lacking.
How Hitler Tackled Unemployment And Revived Germany’s Economy
[...]
As he had promised, Hitler and his National Socialist government banished unemployment within four years. The number of jobless was cut from six million at the beginning of 1933, when he took power, to one million by 1936. / 7 So rapidly was the jobless rate reduced that by 1937-38 there was a national labor shortage. / 8
For the great mass of Germans, wages and working conditions improved steadily. From 1932 to 1938 gross real weekly earnings increased by 21 percent. After taking into account tax and insurance deductions and adjustments to the cost of living, the increase in real weekly earnings during this period was 14 percent. At the same time, rents remained stable, and there was a relative decline in the costs of heating and light. Prices actually declined for some consumer goods, such as electrical appliances, clocks and watches, as well as for some foods. "Consumer prices rose at an average annual rate of just 1.2 percent between 1933 and 1939," notes British historian Niall Ferguson. "This meant that Germans workers were better off in real as well as nominal terms: between 1933 and 1938, weekly net earnings (after tax) rose by 22 percent, while the cost of living rose by just seven percent." Even after the outbreak of war in September 1939, workers’ income continued to rise. By 1943 average hourly earnings of German workers had risen by 25 percent, and weekly earnings by 41 percent. / 9
The “normal” work day for most Germans was eight hours, and pay for overtime work was generous. / 10 In addition to higher wages, benefits included markedly improved working conditions, such as better health and safety conditions, canteens with subsidized hot meals, athletic fields, parks, subsidized theater performances and concerts, exhibitions, sports and hiking groups, dances, adult education courses, and subsidized tourism. / 11 An already extensive network of social welfare programs, including old age insurance and a national health care program, was expanded.
Hitler wanted Germans to have “the highest possible standard of living,” he said in an interview with an American journalist in early 1934. “In my opinion, the Americans are right in not wanting to make everyone the same but rather in upholding the principle of the ladder. However, every single person must be granted the opportunity to climb up the ladder.” / 12 In keeping with this outlook, Hitler’s government promoted social mobility, with wide opportunities to improve and advance. As Prof. Garraty notes: “It is beyond argument that the Nazis encouraged working-class social and economic mobility.” To encourage acquisition of new skills, the government greatly expanded vocational training programs, and offered generous incentives for further advancement of efficient workers. / 13
Both National Socialist ideology and Hitler’s basic outlook, writes historian John Garraty, “inclined the regime to favor the ordinary German over any elite group. Workers … had an honored place in the system.” In accord with this, the regime provided substantive fringe benefits for workers that included subsidized housing, low-cost excursions, sports programs, and more pleasing factory facilities. / 14
In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, historian Joachim Fest acknowledged: “The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to rise, it in fact demonstrated class neutrality … These measures did indeed break through the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved the material condition of much of the population.” / 15
A few figures give an idea of how the quality of life improved. Between 1932, the last year of the pre-Hitler era, and 1938, the last full year before the outbreak of war, food consumption increased by one sixth, while clothing and textile turnover increased by more than a quarter, and of furniture and household goods by 50 percent. / 16 During the Third Reich’s peacetime years, wine consumption rose by 50 percent, and champagne consumption increased five-fold. / 17 Between 1932 and 1938, the volume of tourism more than doubled, while automobile ownership during the 1930s tripled. / 18 German motor vehicle production, which included cars made by the US-owned Ford and General Motors (Opel) works, doubled in the five years of 1932 to 1937, while Germany’s motor vehicle exports increased eight-fold. Air passenger traffic in Germany more than tripled from 1933 to 1937. / 19
German business revived and prospered. During the first four years of the National Socialist era, net profits of large corporations quadrupled, and managerial and entrepreneurial income rose by nearly 50 percent. / 20 Between 1933 and 1938, notes historian Niall Ferguson, Germany's "gross domestic product grew, on average, by a remarkable eleven percent a year," with no significant increase in the rate of inflation. / 21 “Things were to get even better,” writes Jewish historian Richard Grunberger in his detailed study, The Twelve-Year Reich. “In the three years between 1939 and 1942 German industry expanded as much as it had during the preceding fifty years.” / 20
On November 13 2012 02:00 Klive5ive wrote: It's just sensationalist crap journalism in my opinion. I'm fed up of the terms right and left wing: they are meaningless and out of date. From the article: "The Immortals, for example - anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist and anti-democratic" - that could just as easily describe a bunch of hippies! They then compare that (by proxy) with a crazy terrorist cell. I hate articles like that; it's just so dumb.
Yes, this. The terms are borderline meaningless. People usually just use the terms to paint people as "bad guys."
I'm sure a large number of these so-called neonazis are just people who really get off on people thinking they are disgusting, who get off on being different and edgy and dangerous to the public. All the state indoctrination in the world won't change that, in fact it might even make it worse.
I know a pretty accurate statistic that says: 2% of the german population is far-right winged, voting for extreme parties. You know where I got this? This awesome statistic is called "Bundestagswahlen 2009". If you want a more updated one, there is one in production, it will be out in 2013 with the title "Bundestagswahlen 2013".
And you could call those statistics pretty unbiased.
On November 13 2012 00:16 solidbebe wrote: Neonazis make me feel sick to the stomach. Worst part of it are the people who know exactly what happened with Hitler and are still neonazis. Scum of the earth...
I guess fucked up people will always be around, its when they get to power that things go wrong.
Nazis have nothing against the Jews that was strictly Hitler, so whats your big problem with them?
Nazi(fascism is general..) ideology believes that force is the way to go. I think that's shitty and make the world a shitty place to live, you can't have freedom if you're afraid people are gonna kill you because of the way you look.
Aren't the ones banning political parties and criminalizing skepticism of the holocaust the people who believe in force?
Nazi's simply were not socialists. The socialist parts of the party were marginalized and executed during the night of the long knives.
They are as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.
-
Also, one cannot seperate the crimes of the Nazi regime from its economical achievements. The economic strides that Nazi Germany were the result of its military build-up. The entire foundation would have fallen out from under it, had they not gone to war.
The only way to make military keynesianism viable is through going to war before the bill is presented.
The murder of millions is the direct result of the economic policies of Nazi-Germany.
Had they not gone to war, their economy could not have sustained itself. Everyone in Europe was sacrificed upon the altar of German recovery.
On November 13 2012 00:16 solidbebe wrote: Neonazis make me feel sick to the stomach. Worst part of it are the people who know exactly what happened with Hitler and are still neonazis. Scum of the earth...
I guess fucked up people will always be around, its when they get to power that things go wrong.
Nazis have nothing against the Jews that was strictly Hitler, so whats your big problem with them?
Nazi(fascism is general..) ideology believes that force is the way to go. I think that's shitty and make the world a shitty place to live, you can't have freedom if you're afraid people are gonna kill you because of the way you look.
Aren't the ones banning political parties and criminalizing skepticism of the holocaust the people who believe in force?
Here in Germany it is not a "forceful" act. It takes several years and couple of instance to go trough. It is an act of justice, if legal reasons can be found justice will be spoken according to the written law which everyone agreed to.
Hm, I guess people are getting fed up with the ever growing mass of Russians and their "welfare". Not having to work but being able to buy a BMW...no surprise there. Also, some parts of several towns are definitely hurting.
On November 13 2012 02:40 Dagobert wrote: Give people a decent education as well as a job (or for kids: a safe place to grow up and play) and extremism will not be an issue.
a safe place to grow up so no muslim immigrants in the neighbourhood? That would confirm my personal experience. The far left are mostly from well off suburbs while the the "right" are the people living with the immigrants.
On November 13 2012 01:36 WP_Insanity wrote: I think you can separate the followers of the NPD in roughly 3 groups: 1) Young Neo-Nazis who truly believe in the third reich in the the way it was under hitlers dictatorship because of bad education and the will to have a different and extreme opinion to separate from others.
2) People who dont like the situation who are sick of the "empty talk" of politicians think NPD can change something with their aggressive attitude. These People often dont really think about that it could end in another third reich thought.
3) Older people who have the "back then everything was better" mindset.
So how can this change? I think 3) will solved by time itself. Solving 2) should be the task of the big partys and/or the way the media presents stuff (media seems biased in politic stuff anyways, so why not in a good direction?). What about 1? Well to be honest i dont think you can completly rule out the problem but that should be fine.
What "Good old times" would older people remember? The 20s? The 30s? The 6 years of war, 10 years of rebuilding destroyed cities and 40 years of US and Soviet occupation?
Or are there like, 130 year olds I haven't heard of that still remember the days of Wilhelms.
By back then i mean the time of third reich.
Actually there are quite some old people who think something like "atleast we would have changed something back then". And some still have the mindset that everything was fine back then. I know this may be hard to believe for non-Germans, but i´ve met quite some people like this. Pretty scary.
Once a year (I believe on hitlers birthday) there are a little group of nazi's that do a march in Edmonton, they are usually outnumbered 10-1 by counter protestors, they make it easy on us though since there are only 8-12 each year. I think the most pathetic thing about the whole deal is that they wear masks to hide there identity...
On November 13 2012 02:33 esperanto wrote: The report you bring up here is proven to be full of fake evidence.
Can you give me even a single example of "fake evidence" in The Rudolf Report? I would have expected Richard Green's reply to mention such a thing.
On November 13 2012 02:33 esperanto wrote: Most people even doubt that the samples he used in his report were real.
Really? But there are pictures of him collecting his samples. And the samples he took all correlate well with the three other independent chemical tests.
On November 13 2012 02:33 esperanto wrote: And he not only published 1 book, he published 8 books talking about the "auschwitz lies"
Would it have been less illegal for him to only publish one book of criminalized views?
On November 13 2012 02:33 esperanto wrote: He also hosted nazi-website in the USA.
That's a lie.
On November 13 2012 02:33 esperanto wrote: And it wasnt 3 years in prison and it wasnt only for writing a "scientific paper".
He served 2.5 years
On November 13 2012 02:33 esperanto wrote: You sir just defended a hatefull nazi who actually never was interessted in scientific work.
There's nothing even remotely hateful and any of Germar Rudolf's writings. He is not a Nazi. And his interest seems to be purely in honesty and scientific integrity.
Try actually reading his paper instead of going off the deep end and abusing the ad hominem fallacy. Actually I don't see any arguments from you at all. It's just ad hominem attacks that aren't even true.
On November 13 2012 02:33 esperanto wrote: This is the best example why holocaust denial should stay forbidden in germany. Everyone who does it, simply does it to spread hate. And this is the prime example for "Volksverhetzung", spreading lies and hate that lead to racist violent attacks.
Aren't you the one spreading hate against people with different opinions? After all you are the one trying to characterize Germar as a "Nazi", knowing that Nazis are generally hated and people think it is okay to deny alleged "Nazis" human rights like free speech.
I really wish you would read the information you agree with criminalizing. Sadly people who advocate speech crime laws are often very ignorant and unwilling to even listen to other views (surprise, that's why they want to ban other views).
The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz (Rudolf) http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/
On November 13 2012 00:50 EtherealBlade wrote: I find it amazing how this foundation managed find about 7 million Neo Nazis in the very center of Europe (according to the 9% figure) that no one noticed earlier.
I don't think this is much news to be honest, just the usual scaremongering - even if this was real, the (main) problem would not only be the Neonazi kids, but the issues that are being swept under the rug by the EU and Western governments. But what can we expect when the mainstream can be allowed to praise the Weimar Republic as some kind of golden era?
Germany, like many other countries had a rough 19th and 20th century, and got a lot to reflect on, but it's been overdone for a long time now and turned into some sick brainwashing. It's inevitable that sooner or later educated people will demand an end to it, but the hypocrites will scream Nazi until the end.
This basically closed the thread. Of course the OP, while answering many other posts, ignored this one. Just some points. So the studies sees 9% of the population as extreme rightwing, yet only 3% trivialize nazi rule and 3,5% would prefer a rightwing dictatory state. Pretty big discrepancy. Germans with foreign roots and foreigners score higher in these departments btw, just to put things in perspective. Of course the threadstarter doesn't mention this, as it won't fit his agenda.
Chauvinism gets used as a rightwing indicator, this makes me scratch my head in disbelief.
4% show signs of social darwinistic thinking. Classical sight of extreme right AND extreme left wing thinking (class struggle anyone?). Again large discrepancy to the number of so called extreme right wing guys.
True is there is a rising anti foreigner thinking in Germany today. As usual the reasons for that are complex. Some are the baddening economic situation of some people. Run down neighbourhoods with rising crime in big cities with largely immigrant population. Overrepresentation of foreign people in violent crime and the governments refusal to try to solve this issue. Lack of education. Lack of integration programs, lack of willingness of integration and a thousand others. As I said the problems are complex.
Threadstarter should be a bit ashamed of himself for fearmongering Fox news style. The study is laughable and paid for by the center-left party in Germany. Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung gets largely sponsored by the state. Basically every party has its own Stiftung in Germany. This is not neutral science.
I vote center- left btw. But to claim that we have nearly 10% neonazis running around is downright bullshit and fearmongering of the highest order. Can you explain to me why rightwing parties generally run around ~3% in federal elections?
On November 13 2012 00:36 BluePanther wrote: For all the comments about how America is too far right politically, Europe always has this problem and we never really do.
lolwut.
I constantly see on Comedy Central of how racist African-Americana is about everybody. Even themselves. Just so they can keep doing it.
On November 13 2012 02:35 bluQ wrote: I know a pretty accurate statistic that says: 2% of the german population is far-right winged, voting for extreme parties. You know where I got this? This awesome statistic is called "Bundestagswahlen 2009". If you want a more updated one, there is one in production, it will be out in 2013 with the title "Bundestagswahlen 2013".
And you could call those statistics pretty unbiased.
While this is certainly correct (actually only 2% of the voting German pop, but well, whatever^^), there's the problem that other parties have a high amount of antisemitism and are anti-foreigner as well.
As you can see nearly 50% of CDU/CSU/SPD voters (in Eastern Germany) are anti foreigner. And about ~10% of all parties (some more some less) have at least antisemitic tendencies. Funny that non of the 4 NPD guys is it though. This is actually correlating with the age distribution (old people more anti foreigner) and CDU/SPD voters are older.
On November 13 2012 01:36 WP_Insanity wrote: I think you can separate the followers of the NPD in roughly 3 groups: 1) Young Neo-Nazis who truly believe in the third reich in the the way it was under hitlers dictatorship because of bad education and the will to have a different and extreme opinion to separate from others.
2) People who dont like the situation who are sick of the "empty talk" of politicians think NPD can change something with their aggressive attitude. These People often dont really think about that it could end in another third reich thought.
3) Older people who have the "back then everything was better" mindset.
So how can this change? I think 3) will solved by time itself. Solving 2) should be the task of the big partys and/or the way the media presents stuff (media seems biased in politic stuff anyways, so why not in a good direction?). What about 1? Well to be honest i dont think you can completly rule out the problem but that should be fine.
What "Good old times" would older people remember? The 20s? The 30s? The 6 years of war, 10 years of rebuilding destroyed cities and 40 years of US and Soviet occupation?
Or are there like, 130 year olds I haven't heard of that still remember the days of Wilhelms.
Maybe they are old enough to remember the miraculous economic recovery that took place as a result of National Socialist policies, and the brief but booming and prosperous time before Britain and France declared war? You post so confidently about a subject where your knowledge seems to be severely lacking.
How Hitler Tackled Unemployment And Revived Germany’s Economy
[...]
As he had promised, Hitler and his National Socialist government banished unemployment within four years. The number of jobless was cut from six million at the beginning of 1933, when he took power, to one million by 1936. / 7 So rapidly was the jobless rate reduced that by 1937-38 there was a national labor shortage. / 8
For the great mass of Germans, wages and working conditions improved steadily. From 1932 to 1938 gross real weekly earnings increased by 21 percent. After taking into account tax and insurance deductions and adjustments to the cost of living, the increase in real weekly earnings during this period was 14 percent. At the same time, rents remained stable, and there was a relative decline in the costs of heating and light. Prices actually declined for some consumer goods, such as electrical appliances, clocks and watches, as well as for some foods. "Consumer prices rose at an average annual rate of just 1.2 percent between 1933 and 1939," notes British historian Niall Ferguson. "This meant that Germans workers were better off in real as well as nominal terms: between 1933 and 1938, weekly net earnings (after tax) rose by 22 percent, while the cost of living rose by just seven percent." Even after the outbreak of war in September 1939, workers’ income continued to rise. By 1943 average hourly earnings of German workers had risen by 25 percent, and weekly earnings by 41 percent. / 9
The “normal” work day for most Germans was eight hours, and pay for overtime work was generous. / 10 In addition to higher wages, benefits included markedly improved working conditions, such as better health and safety conditions, canteens with subsidized hot meals, athletic fields, parks, subsidized theater performances and concerts, exhibitions, sports and hiking groups, dances, adult education courses, and subsidized tourism. / 11 An already extensive network of social welfare programs, including old age insurance and a national health care program, was expanded.
Hitler wanted Germans to have “the highest possible standard of living,” he said in an interview with an American journalist in early 1934. “In my opinion, the Americans are right in not wanting to make everyone the same but rather in upholding the principle of the ladder. However, every single person must be granted the opportunity to climb up the ladder.” / 12 In keeping with this outlook, Hitler’s government promoted social mobility, with wide opportunities to improve and advance. As Prof. Garraty notes: “It is beyond argument that the Nazis encouraged working-class social and economic mobility.” To encourage acquisition of new skills, the government greatly expanded vocational training programs, and offered generous incentives for further advancement of efficient workers. / 13
Both National Socialist ideology and Hitler’s basic outlook, writes historian John Garraty, “inclined the regime to favor the ordinary German over any elite group. Workers … had an honored place in the system.” In accord with this, the regime provided substantive fringe benefits for workers that included subsidized housing, low-cost excursions, sports programs, and more pleasing factory facilities. / 14
In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, historian Joachim Fest acknowledged: “The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to rise, it in fact demonstrated class neutrality … These measures did indeed break through the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved the material condition of much of the population.” / 15
A few figures give an idea of how the quality of life improved. Between 1932, the last year of the pre-Hitler era, and 1938, the last full year before the outbreak of war, food consumption increased by one sixth, while clothing and textile turnover increased by more than a quarter, and of furniture and household goods by 50 percent. / 16 During the Third Reich’s peacetime years, wine consumption rose by 50 percent, and champagne consumption increased five-fold. / 17 Between 1932 and 1938, the volume of tourism more than doubled, while automobile ownership during the 1930s tripled. / 18 German motor vehicle production, which included cars made by the US-owned Ford and General Motors (Opel) works, doubled in the five years of 1932 to 1937, while Germany’s motor vehicle exports increased eight-fold. Air passenger traffic in Germany more than tripled from 1933 to 1937. / 19
German business revived and prospered. During the first four years of the National Socialist era, net profits of large corporations quadrupled, and managerial and entrepreneurial income rose by nearly 50 percent. / 20 Between 1933 and 1938, notes historian Niall Ferguson, Germany's "gross domestic product grew, on average, by a remarkable eleven percent a year," with no significant increase in the rate of inflation. / 21 “Things were to get even better,” writes Jewish historian Richard Grunberger in his detailed study, The Twelve-Year Reich. “In the three years between 1939 and 1942 German industry expanded as much as it had during the preceding fifty years.” / 20
Well as always people without hope (job, education, ghost-towns) tend to get extrem in their ways. I think many people are way too alerted that this happens 'again' in germany. Nothing special if you look at every other country with imigration around the world. 30 Years in one of the largest city in germany and I have only seen ONE dude with a retarded cross on his head.
The pre-punk - left wing extremist (bored and wanna change something) are more extrem than any nazigroup at the moment in Germany. Anarchyretards everywhere.
On November 13 2012 02:27 Yuljan wrote: 9%? Why not quote the important figure. 36,2% are extremely against islam and 60,2% are critical of islam. The rise of people willing to vote the idiotic far right parties is because no other party recognizes the majority of the population. We are getting fed bullshit about integration and culturally enriching immigrants that are nowhere near recognizing the reality of the situation.
this is the main fact !
Even though many muslims are integrated many other arent... during the 60´s many uneducated muslims were brought to Germany to rebuild it but they moved into ghetto-like districts and nobody took care of them... So neither the parents learned to speak and to write German nor their children. They stayed often isolated and combined with poverty , a lack of education and a culture that supports this isolation by just staying in the family while having no initiative to learn and adapt the German culture and language "many" muslims (especially turkish immigrants) are conservative, unprogressive and uneducated which leads to more violence and a higher rate of unemployment
On November 13 2012 02:36 zalz wrote: Nazi's simply were not socialists. The socialist parts of the party were marginalized and executed during the night of the long knives.
They are as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.
-
Also, one cannot seperate the crimes of the Nazi regime from its economical achievements. The economic strides that Nazi Germany were the result of its military build-up. The entire foundation would have fallen out from under it, had they not gone to war.
The only way to make military keynesianism viable is through going to war before the bill is presented.
The murder of millions is the direct result of the economic policies of Nazi-Germany.
Had they not gone to war, their economy could not have sustained itself. Everyone in Europe was sacrificed upon the altar of German recovery.
What you are saying is simply not true. I suggest you read this whole article to get a better understanding of the subject:
How Hitler Tackled Unemployment And Revived Germany’s Economy
[...]
It’s often been claimed, even by some supposedly reputable scholars, that Hitler’s success in reviving his nation’s economic life was based largely on government spending for rearmament and preparation for war. This is a myth. As the renowned British historian A. J. P. Taylor noted: / 37 “Germany’s economic recovery, which was complete by 1936, did not rest on rearmamnent; it was caused mainly by lavish expenditure on public works, particularly on motor roads, and this public spending stimulated private spending also, as [British economist John Maynard] Keynes had said it would. Hitler actually skimped on armaments, despite his boasting, partly because he wished to avoid the unpopularitiy which a reduction of the German standard of living would cause, but more from the confident belief that he would always succeed in bluff. Thus, paradoxidcally, while nearly eveeryone else in Europe expected a great war, Hitler was the one man who neither expected nor planned for it.”
On November 13 2012 01:36 WP_Insanity wrote: I think you can separate the followers of the NPD in roughly 3 groups: 1) Young Neo-Nazis who truly believe in the third reich in the the way it was under hitlers dictatorship because of bad education and the will to have a different and extreme opinion to separate from others.
2) People who dont like the situation who are sick of the "empty talk" of politicians think NPD can change something with their aggressive attitude. These People often dont really think about that it could end in another third reich thought.
3) Older people who have the "back then everything was better" mindset.
So how can this change? I think 3) will solved by time itself. Solving 2) should be the task of the big partys and/or the way the media presents stuff (media seems biased in politic stuff anyways, so why not in a good direction?). What about 1? Well to be honest i dont think you can completly rule out the problem but that should be fine.
What "Good old times" would older people remember? The 20s? The 30s? The 6 years of war, 10 years of rebuilding destroyed cities and 40 years of US and Soviet occupation?
Or are there like, 130 year olds I haven't heard of that still remember the days of Wilhelms.
Maybe they are old enough to remember the miraculous economic recovery that took place as a result of National Socialist policies, and the brief but booming and prosperous time before Britain and France declared war? You post so confidently about a subject where your knowledge seems to be severely lacking.
How Hitler Tackled Unemployment And Revived Germany’s Economy
[...]
As he had promised, Hitler and his National Socialist government banished unemployment within four years. The number of jobless was cut from six million at the beginning of 1933, when he took power, to one million by 1936. / 7 So rapidly was the jobless rate reduced that by 1937-38 there was a national labor shortage. / 8
For the great mass of Germans, wages and working conditions improved steadily. From 1932 to 1938 gross real weekly earnings increased by 21 percent. After taking into account tax and insurance deductions and adjustments to the cost of living, the increase in real weekly earnings during this period was 14 percent. At the same time, rents remained stable, and there was a relative decline in the costs of heating and light. Prices actually declined for some consumer goods, such as electrical appliances, clocks and watches, as well as for some foods. "Consumer prices rose at an average annual rate of just 1.2 percent between 1933 and 1939," notes British historian Niall Ferguson. "This meant that Germans workers were better off in real as well as nominal terms: between 1933 and 1938, weekly net earnings (after tax) rose by 22 percent, while the cost of living rose by just seven percent." Even after the outbreak of war in September 1939, workers’ income continued to rise. By 1943 average hourly earnings of German workers had risen by 25 percent, and weekly earnings by 41 percent. / 9
The “normal” work day for most Germans was eight hours, and pay for overtime work was generous. / 10 In addition to higher wages, benefits included markedly improved working conditions, such as better health and safety conditions, canteens with subsidized hot meals, athletic fields, parks, subsidized theater performances and concerts, exhibitions, sports and hiking groups, dances, adult education courses, and subsidized tourism. / 11 An already extensive network of social welfare programs, including old age insurance and a national health care program, was expanded.
Hitler wanted Germans to have “the highest possible standard of living,” he said in an interview with an American journalist in early 1934. “In my opinion, the Americans are right in not wanting to make everyone the same but rather in upholding the principle of the ladder. However, every single person must be granted the opportunity to climb up the ladder.” / 12 In keeping with this outlook, Hitler’s government promoted social mobility, with wide opportunities to improve and advance. As Prof. Garraty notes: “It is beyond argument that the Nazis encouraged working-class social and economic mobility.” To encourage acquisition of new skills, the government greatly expanded vocational training programs, and offered generous incentives for further advancement of efficient workers. / 13
Both National Socialist ideology and Hitler’s basic outlook, writes historian John Garraty, “inclined the regime to favor the ordinary German over any elite group. Workers … had an honored place in the system.” In accord with this, the regime provided substantive fringe benefits for workers that included subsidized housing, low-cost excursions, sports programs, and more pleasing factory facilities. / 14
In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, historian Joachim Fest acknowledged: “The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to rise, it in fact demonstrated class neutrality … These measures did indeed break through the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved the material condition of much of the population.” / 15
A few figures give an idea of how the quality of life improved. Between 1932, the last year of the pre-Hitler era, and 1938, the last full year before the outbreak of war, food consumption increased by one sixth, while clothing and textile turnover increased by more than a quarter, and of furniture and household goods by 50 percent. / 16 During the Third Reich’s peacetime years, wine consumption rose by 50 percent, and champagne consumption increased five-fold. / 17 Between 1932 and 1938, the volume of tourism more than doubled, while automobile ownership during the 1930s tripled. / 18 German motor vehicle production, which included cars made by the US-owned Ford and General Motors (Opel) works, doubled in the five years of 1932 to 1937, while Germany’s motor vehicle exports increased eight-fold. Air passenger traffic in Germany more than tripled from 1933 to 1937. / 19
German business revived and prospered. During the first four years of the National Socialist era, net profits of large corporations quadrupled, and managerial and entrepreneurial income rose by nearly 50 percent. / 20 Between 1933 and 1938, notes historian Niall Ferguson, Germany's "gross domestic product grew, on average, by a remarkable eleven percent a year," with no significant increase in the rate of inflation. / 21 “Things were to get even better,” writes Jewish historian Richard Grunberger in his detailed study, The Twelve-Year Reich. “In the three years between 1939 and 1942 German industry expanded as much as it had during the preceding fifty years.” / 20
You seem to have a problem discerning a joke from an invitation to copy/paste a wall of text. Although you did make me smile even more.
Sorry, I didn't recognize it as a joke because there was no identifiable humor in it.
It appeared to be just wrong opinions made up based on limited understanding of history and an irrational hatred of Nazis.
What would rational hatred of Nazis look like? If you're looking for "Oh, these Nazis are just not my sort of people. Tata!" I think there are other sites more befitting your......."standards".
On November 13 2012 00:16 solidbebe wrote: Neonazis make me feel sick to the stomach. Worst part of it are the people who know exactly what happened with Hitler and are still neonazis. Scum of the earth...
I guess fucked up people will always be around, its when they get to power that things go wrong.
Nazis have nothing against the Jews that was strictly Hitler, so whats your big problem with them?
Nazi(fascism is general..) ideology believes that force is the way to go. I think that's shitty and make the world a shitty place to live, you can't have freedom if you're afraid people are gonna kill you because of the way you look.
Aren't the ones banning political parties and criminalizing skepticism of the holocaust the people who believe in force?
Here in Germany it is not a "forceful" act. It takes several years and couple of instance to go trough. It is an act of justice, if legal reasons can be found justice will be spoken according to the written law which everyone agreed to.
On November 13 2012 01:36 WP_Insanity wrote: I think you can separate the followers of the NPD in roughly 3 groups: 1) Young Neo-Nazis who truly believe in the third reich in the the way it was under hitlers dictatorship because of bad education and the will to have a different and extreme opinion to separate from others.
2) People who dont like the situation who are sick of the "empty talk" of politicians think NPD can change something with their aggressive attitude. These People often dont really think about that it could end in another third reich thought.
3) Older people who have the "back then everything was better" mindset.
So how can this change? I think 3) will solved by time itself. Solving 2) should be the task of the big partys and/or the way the media presents stuff (media seems biased in politic stuff anyways, so why not in a good direction?). What about 1? Well to be honest i dont think you can completly rule out the problem but that should be fine.
What "Good old times" would older people remember? The 20s? The 30s? The 6 years of war, 10 years of rebuilding destroyed cities and 40 years of US and Soviet occupation?
Or are there like, 130 year olds I haven't heard of that still remember the days of Wilhelms.
Maybe they are old enough to remember the miraculous economic recovery that took place as a result of National Socialist policies, and the brief but booming and prosperous time before Britain and France declared war? You post so confidently about a subject where your knowledge seems to be severely lacking.
How Hitler Tackled Unemployment And Revived Germany’s Economy
[...]
As he had promised, Hitler and his National Socialist government banished unemployment within four years. The number of jobless was cut from six million at the beginning of 1933, when he took power, to one million by 1936. / 7 So rapidly was the jobless rate reduced that by 1937-38 there was a national labor shortage. / 8
For the great mass of Germans, wages and working conditions improved steadily. From 1932 to 1938 gross real weekly earnings increased by 21 percent. After taking into account tax and insurance deductions and adjustments to the cost of living, the increase in real weekly earnings during this period was 14 percent. At the same time, rents remained stable, and there was a relative decline in the costs of heating and light. Prices actually declined for some consumer goods, such as electrical appliances, clocks and watches, as well as for some foods. "Consumer prices rose at an average annual rate of just 1.2 percent between 1933 and 1939," notes British historian Niall Ferguson. "This meant that Germans workers were better off in real as well as nominal terms: between 1933 and 1938, weekly net earnings (after tax) rose by 22 percent, while the cost of living rose by just seven percent." Even after the outbreak of war in September 1939, workers’ income continued to rise. By 1943 average hourly earnings of German workers had risen by 25 percent, and weekly earnings by 41 percent. / 9
The “normal” work day for most Germans was eight hours, and pay for overtime work was generous. / 10 In addition to higher wages, benefits included markedly improved working conditions, such as better health and safety conditions, canteens with subsidized hot meals, athletic fields, parks, subsidized theater performances and concerts, exhibitions, sports and hiking groups, dances, adult education courses, and subsidized tourism. / 11 An already extensive network of social welfare programs, including old age insurance and a national health care program, was expanded.
Hitler wanted Germans to have “the highest possible standard of living,” he said in an interview with an American journalist in early 1934. “In my opinion, the Americans are right in not wanting to make everyone the same but rather in upholding the principle of the ladder. However, every single person must be granted the opportunity to climb up the ladder.” / 12 In keeping with this outlook, Hitler’s government promoted social mobility, with wide opportunities to improve and advance. As Prof. Garraty notes: “It is beyond argument that the Nazis encouraged working-class social and economic mobility.” To encourage acquisition of new skills, the government greatly expanded vocational training programs, and offered generous incentives for further advancement of efficient workers. / 13
Both National Socialist ideology and Hitler’s basic outlook, writes historian John Garraty, “inclined the regime to favor the ordinary German over any elite group. Workers … had an honored place in the system.” In accord with this, the regime provided substantive fringe benefits for workers that included subsidized housing, low-cost excursions, sports programs, and more pleasing factory facilities. / 14
In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, historian Joachim Fest acknowledged: “The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to rise, it in fact demonstrated class neutrality … These measures did indeed break through the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved the material condition of much of the population.” / 15
A few figures give an idea of how the quality of life improved. Between 1932, the last year of the pre-Hitler era, and 1938, the last full year before the outbreak of war, food consumption increased by one sixth, while clothing and textile turnover increased by more than a quarter, and of furniture and household goods by 50 percent. / 16 During the Third Reich’s peacetime years, wine consumption rose by 50 percent, and champagne consumption increased five-fold. / 17 Between 1932 and 1938, the volume of tourism more than doubled, while automobile ownership during the 1930s tripled. / 18 German motor vehicle production, which included cars made by the US-owned Ford and General Motors (Opel) works, doubled in the five years of 1932 to 1937, while Germany’s motor vehicle exports increased eight-fold. Air passenger traffic in Germany more than tripled from 1933 to 1937. / 19
German business revived and prospered. During the first four years of the National Socialist era, net profits of large corporations quadrupled, and managerial and entrepreneurial income rose by nearly 50 percent. / 20 Between 1933 and 1938, notes historian Niall Ferguson, Germany's "gross domestic product grew, on average, by a remarkable eleven percent a year," with no significant increase in the rate of inflation. / 21 “Things were to get even better,” writes Jewish historian Richard Grunberger in his detailed study, The Twelve-Year Reich. “In the three years between 1939 and 1942 German industry expanded as much as it had during the preceding fifty years.” / 20
Yes, Hitler's economic policies were revolutionary. I particularly liked when he seized all the property from jewish people and other minorities, didn't allow women to work (and did not count them or the jews as unemployed), and built an economy largely around militarisation and also coincidentally an enormous deficit.
On November 13 2012 01:36 WP_Insanity wrote: I think you can separate the followers of the NPD in roughly 3 groups: 1) Young Neo-Nazis who truly believe in the third reich in the the way it was under hitlers dictatorship because of bad education and the will to have a different and extreme opinion to separate from others.
2) People who dont like the situation who are sick of the "empty talk" of politicians think NPD can change something with their aggressive attitude. These People often dont really think about that it could end in another third reich thought.
3) Older people who have the "back then everything was better" mindset.
So how can this change? I think 3) will solved by time itself. Solving 2) should be the task of the big partys and/or the way the media presents stuff (media seems biased in politic stuff anyways, so why not in a good direction?). What about 1? Well to be honest i dont think you can completly rule out the problem but that should be fine.
What "Good old times" would older people remember? The 20s? The 30s? The 6 years of war, 10 years of rebuilding destroyed cities and 40 years of US and Soviet occupation?
Or are there like, 130 year olds I haven't heard of that still remember the days of Wilhelms.
Maybe they are old enough to remember the miraculous economic recovery that took place as a result of National Socialist policies, and the brief but booming and prosperous time before Britain and France declared war? You post so confidently about a subject where your knowledge seems to be severely lacking.
How Hitler Tackled Unemployment And Revived Germany’s Economy
[...]
As he had promised, Hitler and his National Socialist government banished unemployment within four years. The number of jobless was cut from six million at the beginning of 1933, when he took power, to one million by 1936. / 7 So rapidly was the jobless rate reduced that by 1937-38 there was a national labor shortage. / 8
For the great mass of Germans, wages and working conditions improved steadily. From 1932 to 1938 gross real weekly earnings increased by 21 percent. After taking into account tax and insurance deductions and adjustments to the cost of living, the increase in real weekly earnings during this period was 14 percent. At the same time, rents remained stable, and there was a relative decline in the costs of heating and light. Prices actually declined for some consumer goods, such as electrical appliances, clocks and watches, as well as for some foods. "Consumer prices rose at an average annual rate of just 1.2 percent between 1933 and 1939," notes British historian Niall Ferguson. "This meant that Germans workers were better off in real as well as nominal terms: between 1933 and 1938, weekly net earnings (after tax) rose by 22 percent, while the cost of living rose by just seven percent." Even after the outbreak of war in September 1939, workers’ income continued to rise. By 1943 average hourly earnings of German workers had risen by 25 percent, and weekly earnings by 41 percent. / 9
The “normal” work day for most Germans was eight hours, and pay for overtime work was generous. / 10 In addition to higher wages, benefits included markedly improved working conditions, such as better health and safety conditions, canteens with subsidized hot meals, athletic fields, parks, subsidized theater performances and concerts, exhibitions, sports and hiking groups, dances, adult education courses, and subsidized tourism. / 11 An already extensive network of social welfare programs, including old age insurance and a national health care program, was expanded.
Hitler wanted Germans to have “the highest possible standard of living,” he said in an interview with an American journalist in early 1934. “In my opinion, the Americans are right in not wanting to make everyone the same but rather in upholding the principle of the ladder. However, every single person must be granted the opportunity to climb up the ladder.” / 12 In keeping with this outlook, Hitler’s government promoted social mobility, with wide opportunities to improve and advance. As Prof. Garraty notes: “It is beyond argument that the Nazis encouraged working-class social and economic mobility.” To encourage acquisition of new skills, the government greatly expanded vocational training programs, and offered generous incentives for further advancement of efficient workers. / 13
Both National Socialist ideology and Hitler’s basic outlook, writes historian John Garraty, “inclined the regime to favor the ordinary German over any elite group. Workers … had an honored place in the system.” In accord with this, the regime provided substantive fringe benefits for workers that included subsidized housing, low-cost excursions, sports programs, and more pleasing factory facilities. / 14
In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, historian Joachim Fest acknowledged: “The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to rise, it in fact demonstrated class neutrality … These measures did indeed break through the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved the material condition of much of the population.” / 15
A few figures give an idea of how the quality of life improved. Between 1932, the last year of the pre-Hitler era, and 1938, the last full year before the outbreak of war, food consumption increased by one sixth, while clothing and textile turnover increased by more than a quarter, and of furniture and household goods by 50 percent. / 16 During the Third Reich’s peacetime years, wine consumption rose by 50 percent, and champagne consumption increased five-fold. / 17 Between 1932 and 1938, the volume of tourism more than doubled, while automobile ownership during the 1930s tripled. / 18 German motor vehicle production, which included cars made by the US-owned Ford and General Motors (Opel) works, doubled in the five years of 1932 to 1937, while Germany’s motor vehicle exports increased eight-fold. Air passenger traffic in Germany more than tripled from 1933 to 1937. / 19
German business revived and prospered. During the first four years of the National Socialist era, net profits of large corporations quadrupled, and managerial and entrepreneurial income rose by nearly 50 percent. / 20 Between 1933 and 1938, notes historian Niall Ferguson, Germany's "gross domestic product grew, on average, by a remarkable eleven percent a year," with no significant increase in the rate of inflation. / 21 “Things were to get even better,” writes Jewish historian Richard Grunberger in his detailed study, The Twelve-Year Reich. “In the three years between 1939 and 1942 German industry expanded as much as it had during the preceding fifty years.” / 20
You seem to have a problem discerning a joke from an invitation to copy/paste a wall of text. Although you did make me smile even more.
Sorry, I didn't recognize it as a joke because there was no identifiable humor in it.
It appeared to be just wrong opinions made up based on limited understanding of history and an irrational hatred of Nazis.
What would rational hatred of Nazis look like? If you're looking for "Oh, these Nazis are just not my sort of people. Tata!" I think there are other sites more befitting your......."standards".
Rational hatred of Nazis: criticizing them for bad things they did.
Irrational hatred of Nazis: claiming they never did anything good, denying the existence of the economic prosperity under Nazi rule, blaming all their success on militarism, etc.
On November 13 2012 02:36 zalz wrote: Nazi's simply were not socialists. The socialist parts of the party were marginalized and executed during the night of the long knives.
They are as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.
-
Also, one cannot seperate the crimes of the Nazi regime from its economical achievements. The economic strides that Nazi Germany were the result of its military build-up. The entire foundation would have fallen out from under it, had they not gone to war.
The only way to make military keynesianism viable is through going to war before the bill is presented.
The murder of millions is the direct result of the economic policies of Nazi-Germany.
Had they not gone to war, their economy could not have sustained itself. Everyone in Europe was sacrificed upon the altar of German recovery.
What you are saying is simply not true. I suggest you read this whole article to get a better understanding of the subject:
How Hitler Tackled Unemployment And Revived Germany’s Economy
[...]
It’s often been claimed, even by some supposedly reputable scholars, that Hitler’s success in reviving his nation’s economic life was based largely on government spending for rearmament and preparation for war. This is a myth. As the renowned British historian A. J. P. Taylor noted: / 37 “Germany’s economic recovery, which was complete by 1936, did not rest on rearmamnent; it was caused mainly by lavish expenditure on public works, particularly on motor roads, and this public spending stimulated private spending also, as [British economist John Maynard] Keynes had said it would. Hitler actually skimped on armaments, despite his boasting, partly because he wished to avoid the unpopularitiy which a reduction of the German standard of living would cause, but more from the confident belief that he would always succeed in bluff. Thus, paradoxidcally, while nearly eveeryone else in Europe expected a great war, Hitler was the one man who neither expected nor planned for it.”
I for one think our system of education is to blame. Dumb people from poor families will stay dumb and poor. And how can you feel superior when you are dumb and poor? Yes, you can't. Then you come across other dumb and poor people who make themselves superior, by degrading others. You join them, and suddenly you are not the bottom of society any more, but you are in a group, where your income, your look or your education doesn't matter. And your new friends blame THOSE other people are the reason for you being poor, having to live in small and dirty flats. They show hate and anger towards those other people and you start to feel the same hatred towards those other people.
And what's the essence of this? A system of education where poor/dumb people have no chance to ever rank up in society, so they build their own society, in which they are the kings.
On November 13 2012 01:36 WP_Insanity wrote: I think you can separate the followers of the NPD in roughly 3 groups: 1) Young Neo-Nazis who truly believe in the third reich in the the way it was under hitlers dictatorship because of bad education and the will to have a different and extreme opinion to separate from others.
2) People who dont like the situation who are sick of the "empty talk" of politicians think NPD can change something with their aggressive attitude. These People often dont really think about that it could end in another third reich thought.
3) Older people who have the "back then everything was better" mindset.
So how can this change? I think 3) will solved by time itself. Solving 2) should be the task of the big partys and/or the way the media presents stuff (media seems biased in politic stuff anyways, so why not in a good direction?). What about 1? Well to be honest i dont think you can completly rule out the problem but that should be fine.
What "Good old times" would older people remember? The 20s? The 30s? The 6 years of war, 10 years of rebuilding destroyed cities and 40 years of US and Soviet occupation?
Or are there like, 130 year olds I haven't heard of that still remember the days of Wilhelms.
Maybe they are old enough to remember the miraculous economic recovery that took place as a result of National Socialist policies, and the brief but booming and prosperous time before Britain and France declared war? You post so confidently about a subject where your knowledge seems to be severely lacking.
How Hitler Tackled Unemployment And Revived Germany’s Economy
[...]
As he had promised, Hitler and his National Socialist government banished unemployment within four years. The number of jobless was cut from six million at the beginning of 1933, when he took power, to one million by 1936. / 7 So rapidly was the jobless rate reduced that by 1937-38 there was a national labor shortage. / 8
For the great mass of Germans, wages and working conditions improved steadily. From 1932 to 1938 gross real weekly earnings increased by 21 percent. After taking into account tax and insurance deductions and adjustments to the cost of living, the increase in real weekly earnings during this period was 14 percent. At the same time, rents remained stable, and there was a relative decline in the costs of heating and light. Prices actually declined for some consumer goods, such as electrical appliances, clocks and watches, as well as for some foods. "Consumer prices rose at an average annual rate of just 1.2 percent between 1933 and 1939," notes British historian Niall Ferguson. "This meant that Germans workers were better off in real as well as nominal terms: between 1933 and 1938, weekly net earnings (after tax) rose by 22 percent, while the cost of living rose by just seven percent." Even after the outbreak of war in September 1939, workers’ income continued to rise. By 1943 average hourly earnings of German workers had risen by 25 percent, and weekly earnings by 41 percent. / 9
The “normal” work day for most Germans was eight hours, and pay for overtime work was generous. / 10 In addition to higher wages, benefits included markedly improved working conditions, such as better health and safety conditions, canteens with subsidized hot meals, athletic fields, parks, subsidized theater performances and concerts, exhibitions, sports and hiking groups, dances, adult education courses, and subsidized tourism. / 11 An already extensive network of social welfare programs, including old age insurance and a national health care program, was expanded.
Hitler wanted Germans to have “the highest possible standard of living,” he said in an interview with an American journalist in early 1934. “In my opinion, the Americans are right in not wanting to make everyone the same but rather in upholding the principle of the ladder. However, every single person must be granted the opportunity to climb up the ladder.” / 12 In keeping with this outlook, Hitler’s government promoted social mobility, with wide opportunities to improve and advance. As Prof. Garraty notes: “It is beyond argument that the Nazis encouraged working-class social and economic mobility.” To encourage acquisition of new skills, the government greatly expanded vocational training programs, and offered generous incentives for further advancement of efficient workers. / 13
Both National Socialist ideology and Hitler’s basic outlook, writes historian John Garraty, “inclined the regime to favor the ordinary German over any elite group. Workers … had an honored place in the system.” In accord with this, the regime provided substantive fringe benefits for workers that included subsidized housing, low-cost excursions, sports programs, and more pleasing factory facilities. / 14
In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, historian Joachim Fest acknowledged: “The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to rise, it in fact demonstrated class neutrality … These measures did indeed break through the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved the material condition of much of the population.” / 15
A few figures give an idea of how the quality of life improved. Between 1932, the last year of the pre-Hitler era, and 1938, the last full year before the outbreak of war, food consumption increased by one sixth, while clothing and textile turnover increased by more than a quarter, and of furniture and household goods by 50 percent. / 16 During the Third Reich’s peacetime years, wine consumption rose by 50 percent, and champagne consumption increased five-fold. / 17 Between 1932 and 1938, the volume of tourism more than doubled, while automobile ownership during the 1930s tripled. / 18 German motor vehicle production, which included cars made by the US-owned Ford and General Motors (Opel) works, doubled in the five years of 1932 to 1937, while Germany’s motor vehicle exports increased eight-fold. Air passenger traffic in Germany more than tripled from 1933 to 1937. / 19
German business revived and prospered. During the first four years of the National Socialist era, net profits of large corporations quadrupled, and managerial and entrepreneurial income rose by nearly 50 percent. / 20 Between 1933 and 1938, notes historian Niall Ferguson, Germany's "gross domestic product grew, on average, by a remarkable eleven percent a year," with no significant increase in the rate of inflation. / 21 “Things were to get even better,” writes Jewish historian Richard Grunberger in his detailed study, The Twelve-Year Reich. “In the three years between 1939 and 1942 German industry expanded as much as it had during the preceding fifty years.” / 20
You seem to have a problem discerning a joke from an invitation to copy/paste a wall of text. Although you did make me smile even more.
Sorry, I didn't recognize it as a joke because there was no identifiable humor in it.
It appeared to be just wrong opinions made up based on limited understanding of history and an irrational hatred of Nazis.
Dude, take your churlish and know it all attitude somewhere else.
Don't be so defensive, buddy. Everyone makes mistakes.
You absurdly said "what good old times?" because apparently you knew nothing about the prosperity of Germany under National Socialism. So I pointed out that they enjoyed great economic prosperity. Now you know better.
I doubt anyone interpreted your post as a joke. It was not funny, just misinformed.
You absurdly said "what good old times?" because apparently you knew nothing about the prosperity of Germany under National Socialism. So I pointed out that they enjoyed great economic prosperity. Now you know better.
I doubt anyone interpreted your post as a joke. It was not funny, just misinformed.
Stop fucking kidding me please. Prosperity? Germany funded EVERYTHING on national debt. They payed with money they never had. It's like saying greece was rich before the financial crisis. Yeah sure.
As a historian and a german citizen I would like to point something out: The NPD is a democratic party and allowed in germany. It is also NOT a conservative party in any way. It is NOT related to the NSDAP (which is banned). On a federal/state level, the NPD does not hold any power and its voters and supporters are constantly threatened with bodily harm and loss of social perspective. Social gatherings of their organisations are regularly disrupted which is against the law that protects the right to demonstrate and the freedom of speech, however, facist behaviour by left partys and politicians is widely tolerated. If you have at some point been in a relationship with someone who, at some point, was a member of the NPD you can lose your job for no reason (except for "wrong friends") Since left partys are fed by the general fear of "nazis" the left media likes to overstate the threat. The german right is the weakest in Europe.
apart from the point of "we want to decrease the number of immigrants" the NPD has a stunningly similar party program to the radical german left (which commits more political crimes per year, is massively stronger and has public support even from non radicals). I think they both should be allowed but monitored closely. As every populist party, both are dangerous, but the NPD does not wield any power.
@Huyugu you seem to know what you are talking about. a fellow historian?
On November 13 2012 03:02 Fualtier wrote: The pre-punk - left wing extremist (bored and wanna change something) are more extrem than any nazigroup at the moment in Germany. Anarchyretards everywhere.
Considering the NSU with the Zschäpe/Bonhardt/Mundlos trio of serial murderers, I'd like to disagree with that statement (not saying there isn't a problem with left wing extremists).
I'm ashamed as well for the 9% number, not much you can do about that, but maybe improve the historical awareness in the lower tier schools (Real +Hauptschulen). Also, the best way to fight this is to fight the poverty in East Germany, having teenagers with no perspective is the breeding ground for extremism of any kind.
I think in Germany the whole WW2 education backfired a bit. I agree it has to be done and it's good that we get it in school a lot. But when I was growing up (mid 20s now), it felt like being German is actually a bad thing. You get constantly confronted with the horros and of the past and their guilt. My parents were not a particular help in that regard either as they were heavily influenced by the hippie movement. So, if you grow up in that environment every identification with your nation is basically taken from you (might seem a bit extreme, but with me that was the case) and if you want to be a non-conformist or a rebel in school, you look for things that are 'forbidden'.
The NPD is a joke. But they actually have a good strategy. They do offers for young people in areas where there is nothing else, do free jurisdictional advice for unemployed people, do community festivals - and the people buy it. It works.
All in all, I wouldn't call all followers of the NPD as Neo-Nazis.
And there are countries who have a much more severe problem with this, for example Russia (yes!):
On November 13 2012 01:36 WP_Insanity wrote: I think you can separate the followers of the NPD in roughly 3 groups: 1) Young Neo-Nazis who truly believe in the third reich in the the way it was under hitlers dictatorship because of bad education and the will to have a different and extreme opinion to separate from others.
2) People who dont like the situation who are sick of the "empty talk" of politicians think NPD can change something with their aggressive attitude. These People often dont really think about that it could end in another third reich thought.
3) Older people who have the "back then everything was better" mindset.
So how can this change? I think 3) will solved by time itself. Solving 2) should be the task of the big partys and/or the way the media presents stuff (media seems biased in politic stuff anyways, so why not in a good direction?). What about 1? Well to be honest i dont think you can completly rule out the problem but that should be fine.
What "Good old times" would older people remember? The 20s? The 30s? The 6 years of war, 10 years of rebuilding destroyed cities and 40 years of US and Soviet occupation?
Or are there like, 130 year olds I haven't heard of that still remember the days of Wilhelms.
Maybe they are old enough to remember the miraculous economic recovery that took place as a result of National Socialist policies, and the brief but booming and prosperous time before Britain and France declared war? You post so confidently about a subject where your knowledge seems to be severely lacking.
How Hitler Tackled Unemployment And Revived Germany’s Economy
[...]
As he had promised, Hitler and his National Socialist government banished unemployment within four years. The number of jobless was cut from six million at the beginning of 1933, when he took power, to one million by 1936. / 7 So rapidly was the jobless rate reduced that by 1937-38 there was a national labor shortage. / 8
For the great mass of Germans, wages and working conditions improved steadily. From 1932 to 1938 gross real weekly earnings increased by 21 percent. After taking into account tax and insurance deductions and adjustments to the cost of living, the increase in real weekly earnings during this period was 14 percent. At the same time, rents remained stable, and there was a relative decline in the costs of heating and light. Prices actually declined for some consumer goods, such as electrical appliances, clocks and watches, as well as for some foods. "Consumer prices rose at an average annual rate of just 1.2 percent between 1933 and 1939," notes British historian Niall Ferguson. "This meant that Germans workers were better off in real as well as nominal terms: between 1933 and 1938, weekly net earnings (after tax) rose by 22 percent, while the cost of living rose by just seven percent." Even after the outbreak of war in September 1939, workers’ income continued to rise. By 1943 average hourly earnings of German workers had risen by 25 percent, and weekly earnings by 41 percent. / 9
The “normal” work day for most Germans was eight hours, and pay for overtime work was generous. / 10 In addition to higher wages, benefits included markedly improved working conditions, such as better health and safety conditions, canteens with subsidized hot meals, athletic fields, parks, subsidized theater performances and concerts, exhibitions, sports and hiking groups, dances, adult education courses, and subsidized tourism. / 11 An already extensive network of social welfare programs, including old age insurance and a national health care program, was expanded.
Hitler wanted Germans to have “the highest possible standard of living,” he said in an interview with an American journalist in early 1934. “In my opinion, the Americans are right in not wanting to make everyone the same but rather in upholding the principle of the ladder. However, every single person must be granted the opportunity to climb up the ladder.” / 12 In keeping with this outlook, Hitler’s government promoted social mobility, with wide opportunities to improve and advance. As Prof. Garraty notes: “It is beyond argument that the Nazis encouraged working-class social and economic mobility.” To encourage acquisition of new skills, the government greatly expanded vocational training programs, and offered generous incentives for further advancement of efficient workers. / 13
Both National Socialist ideology and Hitler’s basic outlook, writes historian John Garraty, “inclined the regime to favor the ordinary German over any elite group. Workers … had an honored place in the system.” In accord with this, the regime provided substantive fringe benefits for workers that included subsidized housing, low-cost excursions, sports programs, and more pleasing factory facilities. / 14
In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, historian Joachim Fest acknowledged: “The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to rise, it in fact demonstrated class neutrality … These measures did indeed break through the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved the material condition of much of the population.” / 15
A few figures give an idea of how the quality of life improved. Between 1932, the last year of the pre-Hitler era, and 1938, the last full year before the outbreak of war, food consumption increased by one sixth, while clothing and textile turnover increased by more than a quarter, and of furniture and household goods by 50 percent. / 16 During the Third Reich’s peacetime years, wine consumption rose by 50 percent, and champagne consumption increased five-fold. / 17 Between 1932 and 1938, the volume of tourism more than doubled, while automobile ownership during the 1930s tripled. / 18 German motor vehicle production, which included cars made by the US-owned Ford and General Motors (Opel) works, doubled in the five years of 1932 to 1937, while Germany’s motor vehicle exports increased eight-fold. Air passenger traffic in Germany more than tripled from 1933 to 1937. / 19
German business revived and prospered. During the first four years of the National Socialist era, net profits of large corporations quadrupled, and managerial and entrepreneurial income rose by nearly 50 percent. / 20 Between 1933 and 1938, notes historian Niall Ferguson, Germany's "gross domestic product grew, on average, by a remarkable eleven percent a year," with no significant increase in the rate of inflation. / 21 “Things were to get even better,” writes Jewish historian Richard Grunberger in his detailed study, The Twelve-Year Reich. “In the three years between 1939 and 1942 German industry expanded as much as it had during the preceding fifty years.” / 20
You seem to have a problem discerning a joke from an invitation to copy/paste a wall of text. Although you did make me smile even more.
Sorry, I didn't recognize it as a joke because there was no identifiable humor in it.
It appeared to be just wrong opinions made up based on limited understanding of history and an irrational hatred of Nazis.
Dude, take your churlish and know it all attitude somewhere else.
Don't be so defensive, buddy. Everyone makes mistakes.
You absurdly said "what good old times?" because apparently you knew nothing about the prosperity of Germany under National Socialism. So I pointed out that they enjoyed great economic prosperity. Now you know better.
I doubt anyone interpreted your post as a joke. It was not funny, just misinformed.
haha, you have no idea how funny this conversation is.
So, what should be the right way to fight this? The videos I posted remind me a little bit about Martin Luther King & Malcolm X. Should we reach hands to help nazis to get out of their ignorance or should we give them fists?
People in this thread said that the Educational System failed, also most ppl understand that making a Party(like NPD, Pro-NRW, Pro-Köln etc) illegal is also the wrong way(and is more like what the Nazis did).
On November 13 2012 02:36 zalz wrote: Nazi's simply were not socialists. The socialist parts of the party were marginalized and executed during the night of the long knives.
They are as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.
-
Also, one cannot seperate the crimes of the Nazi regime from its economical achievements. The economic strides that Nazi Germany were the result of its military build-up. The entire foundation would have fallen out from under it, had they not gone to war.
The only way to make military keynesianism viable is through going to war before the bill is presented.
The murder of millions is the direct result of the economic policies of Nazi-Germany.
Had they not gone to war, their economy could not have sustained itself. Everyone in Europe was sacrificed upon the altar of German recovery.
Fascism and Socialism are both forms of collectivism. That's all that matters, the rest are just details. There is not a war between the Left and the Right, they are both marching towards the state. There is a war between the individualists and the collectivists. What occurred in Germany was the culmination of collectivist logic, what occurred in the USSR was the culmination of collectivist logic. Nazi Germany and USSR and dozens of other authoritarian states were simply collectivism freed from the individualist tradition which might hamper its full realization. It was socialism which was the catalyst to drive out from Germany everything that was liberal.
"There are no liberals in Germany today; there are young revolutionaries: there are young conservatives. But who would be a liberal? Liberalism is a philosophy of life from which German youth now turns with nausea, with wrath, with quite peculiar scorn, for there is none more foreign, more repugnant, more opposed to its philosophy. German youth today recognize the liberal as the archenemy." -Moeller van den Bruck
"Because in the sphere of ideas Germany was the most convinced exponent of all socialist dreams, and in the sphere of reality she was the most powerful architect of the most highly organized economic system. In us is the twentieth century. However the war may end, we are the exemplary people. Our ideas will determine the aims of the life of humanity. "The war economy is the first realization of a socialist society and its spirit is the first active appearance of a socialist spirit. The needs of war have established the socialist idea in German economic life, and thus the defense of our nation produced for humanity the idea of 1914, the idea of German organization, the people's community of national socialism.. State and economic life form a new unity... The feeling of economic responsibility which characterizes the work of the civil servant pervades all private activity. It is high time to recognize the fact that socialism must be power policy, because it is to be organization. Socialism has to win power: it must never blindly destroy power. "Just from the point of view of socialism, which is organization, is not an absolute right of self determination of the peoples the right to individualistic economic anarchy? Are we willing to grant complete self-determination to the individual in economic life? Consistent socialism can accord to the people a right to incorporation only in accordance with the real distribution of forces historically determined." - Johann Plenge
"Germany wants to organize Europe which up to now still lacks organization. I will explain to you now Germany's great secret: we, or perhaps the German race, have discovered the significance of organization. While the other nations still live under the regime of individualism, we have already achieved that of organization." -Wilhelm Ostwald
"Or, to put it more plainly, our conceptions of Liberalism, Democracy, and so forth, are derived from the ideas of English Individualism, according to which a state with a weak government is a liberal state, and every restriction upon the freedom of the individual is conceived as the product of autocracy and militarism. "This class of people, who unconsciously reason from English standards, compromises the whole educated German bourgeoisie. Their political notions of 'freedom' and 'civic right,' of constitutionalism and parliamentarianism, are derived from that individualistic conception of the world, of which English Liberalism is a classical embodiment, and which was adopted, by the spokemen of the German bourgeoisie in the fifties, sixties, and seventies of the nineteenth century. But these standards are old-fashioned and shattered... What has to be done now is to get rid of these inherited political ideas and to assist the growth of a new conception of State and Society. In this sphere Socialism must present a conscious and determined opposition to individualism. "The state has undergone a process of socialization, and Social Democracy has undergone a process of nationalization." - Paul Lensch
"The German, more correctly, Prussian, instinct is this: the power belongs to the whole... Everyone is given his place. One commands or obeys. This is, since the eighteenth century, authoritarian socialism, essentially illiberal and anti-democratic, in so far as the English Liberalism and French Democracy are meant... There are in Germany many hated and ill-reputed contrasts, but liberalism alone is contemptible on German soil." -Oswald Spengler
Does anyone else have issues with the wording of the statements the participants had to agree/disagree with? - Usage of terms that people with no higher education will probably not recognize as being coined by the Nazi regime can easily cause people to be qualified as right-wing extremists due to simple misunderstandings. (examples: "Volksgemeinschaft", "unwertes Leben") - The same problem exists with the statement regarding whether the Nazi regime had good sides as well. Without proper education, people might remeber the economic upswing, expansion of the infrastructure or some reforms of law as beneficial effects without noticing them as parts of the preparation for war. - Some questions are aimed broadly at anti-democratic sentiments, but might draw false positives simply due to dissatisfaction with the current political establishment thats widely seen as mainly self-serving. - The questions regarding "Chauvinism" have the fixed point that any appreciation of the german nation is intrinsically wrong. Disagreeing with this, especially considering the openly showcased patriotism of other democratic nations (USA, GB, France come to mind), shouldn't qualify anyone as a political extremist.
The list goes on, too. I don't want to invalidate the study - the numbers considering xenophobia are interesting, but to be expected - but the only thing it shows to me is how easily people get labeled as right-wing extremists over here.
For one, the liberal societies of Western Europe need to acknowledge that there are real problems with multi culturalism. That doesn't mean demonizing inmigrants to hell and back, but the current policy of screaming "lalalala I can't hear you" all it does is alienating moderate people into becoming more radical just because people willing ignore an issue.
Deal with the issue without extremes, make people feel like they are being heard and you take away the power out of the extremist's message.
On November 13 2012 03:13 The KY wrote: Yes, Hitler's economic policies were revolutionary. I particularly liked when he seized all the property from jewish people and other minorities, didn't allow women to work (and did not count them or the jews as unemployed), and built an economy largely around militarisation and also coincidentally an enormous deficit.
history is not about morals. it's about success. And there is no denying that the German Empire between 1933 and 1942 was incredibly successful. Does not mean we should repeat their strategy because TODAY our morality counts, some things are just not acceptable anymore.
On November 13 2012 03:27 sephiria wrote: As a historian and a german citizen I would like to point something out: The NPD is a democratic party and allowed in germany. It is also NOT a conservative party in any way. It is NOT related to the NSDAP (which is banned). On a federal/state level, the NPD does not hold any power and its voters and supporters are constantly threatened with bodily harm and loss of social perspective. Social gatherings of their organisations are regularly disrupted which is against the law that protects the right to demonstrate and the freedom of speech, however, facist behaviour by left partys and politicians is widely tolerated. If you have at some point been in a relationship with someone who, at some point, was a member of the NPD you can lose your job for no reason (except for "wrong friends") Since left partys are fed by the general fear of "nazis" the left media likes to overstate the threat. The german right is the weakest in Europe.
apart from the point of "we want to decrease the number of immigrants" the NPD has a stunningly similar party program to the radical german left (which commits more political crimes per year, is massively stronger and has public support even from non radicals). I think they both should be allowed but monitored closely. As every populist party, both are dangerous, but the NPD does not wield any power.
@Huyugu you seem to know what you are talking about. a fellow historian?
saying the NPD the democratic is plain wrong.... they are permitted but just look at their election posters and tell me again that they arent racist The NPD is controlled by the "BND" & "BKA" all the time for good reasons.... And the NPD is conservative party because otherwise many voters wouldn´t rotate between NPD and CDU Even many politician at the NPD were CDU politicians before!
But still the left wing member are numerous and currently violent aswell
I've only read first few comments and I'm quite surprised people are being ridiculed by the fact of neonazism being on the rise. In many developed western countries there has been a flood of immigrants from poor parts of the world (mainly islamic and jewish) past few decades who are willing to work for far less than natives of the said countries, which in times of economic crisis when people are losing jobs translates into some angry native population. Also the fact that those same immigrants are trying to enforce their own laws/ways and milking benefits in the countries they migrated to doesn't really help the case. I mean really, if you're gonna migrate to another country, you should honestly obey its rules and adapt to its culture instead of sticking out like a sore thumb, otherwise you're just asking for trouble.
On November 13 2012 03:27 sephiria wrote: As a historian and a german citizen I would like to point something out: The NPD is a democratic party and allowed in germany. It is also NOT a conservative party in any way. It is NOT related to the NSDAP (which is banned). On a federal/state level, the NPD does not hold any power and its voters and supporters are constantly threatened with bodily harm and loss of social perspective. Social gatherings of their organisations are regularly disrupted which is against the law that protects the right to demonstrate and the freedom of speech, however, facist behaviour by left partys and politicians is widely tolerated. If you have at some point been in a relationship with someone who, at some point, was a member of the NPD you can lose your job for no reason (except for "wrong friends") Since left partys are fed by the general fear of "nazis" the left media likes to overstate the threat. The german right is the weakest in Europe.
apart from the point of "we want to decrease the number of immigrants" the NPD has a stunningly similar party program to the radical german left (which commits more political crimes per year, is massively stronger and has public support even from non radicals). I think they both should be allowed but monitored closely. As every populist party, both are dangerous, but the NPD does not wield any power.
@Huyugu you seem to know what you are talking about. a fellow historian?
saying the NPD the democratic is plain wrong.... they are permitted but just look at their election posters and tell me again that they arent racist The NPD is controlled by the "BND" & "BKA" all the time for good reasons.... And the NPD is conservative party because otherwise many voters wouldn´t rotate between NPD and CDU Even many politician at the NPD were CDU politicians before!
But still the left wing member are numerous and currently violent aswell
On November 13 2012 03:13 The KY wrote: Yes, Hitler's economic policies were revolutionary. I particularly liked when he seized all the property from jewish people and other minorities, didn't allow women to work (and did not count them or the jews as unemployed), and built an economy largely around militarisation and also coincidentally an enormous deficit.
history is not about morals. it's about success. And there is no denying that the German Empire between 1933 and 1942 was incredibly successful. Does not mean we should repeat their strategy because TODAY our morality counts, some things are just not acceptable anymore.
You claim to be a historian, yet you are nothing more than a revisionist. The third Reich needed to lead an agressive war with the intention of conquest, otherwise the economy would have collapsed within a few years. There is nothing successful about the idiotic Nazi-regime. And the morals are not only TODAY condemning the despiccable and inhumane crimes the Nazis committed, anyone with half a brain at any point in time would think so. What you are saying is nothing more than right-wing propaganda to be honest.
On November 13 2012 03:13 The KY wrote: Yes, Hitler's economic policies were revolutionary. I particularly liked when he seized all the property from jewish people and other minorities, didn't allow women to work (and did not count them or the jews as unemployed), and built an economy largely around militarisation and also coincidentally an enormous deficit.
history is not about morals. it's about success. And there is no denying that the German Empire between 1933 and 1942 was incredibly successful. Does not mean we should repeat their strategy because TODAY our morality counts, some things are just not acceptable anymore.
I don't see how you can call that success? You have to see the whole story man and it was not like they made some bad decisions in 1942 and that led to their downfall but everyhting untl then was clean and shiny. Where they were in 1945 is a direct consequence of the years before (sure, many thing worsened due to bad leadership but I dare to say being at war with the Soviets, the UK, USA and basically everyone else in the world barring Japan and Italy is not a story of success...
On November 13 2012 03:28 schaf wrote: I think in Germany the whole WW2 education backfired a bit. I agree it has to be done and it's good that we get it in school a lot. But when I was growing up (mid 20s now), it felt like being German is actually a bad thing. You get constantly confronted with the horros and of the past and their guilt. My parents were not a particular help in that regard either as they were heavily influenced by the hippie movement. So, if you grow up in that environment every identification with your nation is basically taken from you (might seem a bit extreme, but with me that was the case) and if you want to be a non-conformist or a rebel in school, you look for things that are 'forbidden'.
The NPD is a joke. But they actually have a good strategy. They do offers for young people in areas where there is nothing else, do free jurisdictional advice for unemployed people, do community festivals - and the people buy it. It works.
All in all, I wouldn't call all followers of the NPD as Neo-Nazis.
And there are countries who have a much more severe problem with this, for example Russia (yes!):
you make a good point here. In reality, that means based on serious science, it is said that around 40-50% of modern nazis live in Russia.
I don't have scientific facts for that, only my own observations. In my experience the "nazis everywhere" thinking is largely an urban phenom. I was raised in a rural area and there nobody cared. There was neither right nor leftwing support. Basically the consens was that both schools of thought were tailor made for idiots. I now live in a bigger town for nearly a decade and young people actually think that Antifa guys do something useful. I strongly disagree with that notion. How many foreign guys do you see in such organisations? Very, very few actually. I think they are a bunch of spoiled upper middle class children who have a lot of growing up to do.. Around here there actions basically consist of insulting the odd old guy from one of the more rightwing populistic movements. These old guys have strange views but are basically harmless.
If you have the time, you could scroll through the presented "study", it is downright laughable. Will help you to form your own opinion.
Also I think you are right about the breeding ground of the "real" nazis. They gain support in areas where state and society failed, because they offer stuff and inclusion. There support stems from folks who get disregarded and degraded from the state and equally ignorant movements from the other side of the political spectrum.
On November 13 2012 02:00 Klive5ive wrote: It's just sensationalist crap journalism in my opinion. I'm fed up of the terms right and left wing: they are meaningless and out of date. From the article: "The Immortals, for example - anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist and anti-democratic" - that could just as easily describe a bunch of hippies! They then compare that (by proxy) with a crazy terrorist cell. I hate articles like that; it's just so dumb.
Yes, this. The terms are borderline meaningless. People usually just use the terms to paint people as "bad guys."
They are not meaningless, only misused or misunderstood.
Political left is about reducing inequality and opposing ideas that skew the distribution of power in a society in favor of the few, based on a single ruling class or a single ruling principle.
How that inequality actually came about and which out of many methods were used to amass power doesn't really matter, or is a secondary concern at best (although some will obviously be less pleasant than the others). Nonetheless, an authoritarian, oppressive government and a hardline libertarian society both ultimately lead to the same problem.
On November 13 2012 03:27 sephiria wrote: As a historian and a german citizen I would like to point something out: The NPD is a democratic party and allowed in germany. It is also NOT a conservative party in any way. It is NOT related to the NSDAP (which is banned). On a federal/state level, the NPD does not hold any power and its voters and supporters are constantly threatened with bodily harm and loss of social perspective. Social gatherings of their organisations are regularly disrupted which is against the law that protects the right to demonstrate and the freedom of speech, however, facist behaviour by left partys and politicians is widely tolerated. If you have at some point been in a relationship with someone who, at some point, was a member of the NPD you can lose your job for no reason (except for "wrong friends") Since left partys are fed by the general fear of "nazis" the left media likes to overstate the threat. The german right is the weakest in Europe.
apart from the point of "we want to decrease the number of immigrants" the NPD has a stunningly similar party program to the radical german left (which commits more political crimes per year, is massively stronger and has public support even from non radicals). I think they both should be allowed but monitored closely. As every populist party, both are dangerous, but the NPD does not wield any power.
@Huyugu you seem to know what you are talking about. a fellow historian?
saying the NPD the democratic is plain wrong.... they are permitted but just look at their election posters and tell me again that they arent racist The NPD is controlled by the "BND" & "BKA" all the time for good reasons.... And the NPD is conservative party because otherwise many voters wouldn´t rotate between NPD and CDU Even many politician at the NPD were CDU politicians before!
But still the left wing member are numerous and currently violent aswell
racism and democracy are unrelated (US like 80 years ago? canada in the early '40s? no democracys?)
and no, I am conservative. I know the difference. People just start to vote NPD because there is no conservative party in germany (and dont say cdu). So they vote what 'feels' right-wing. Most probably haven't even read the NPD party program.
I can only facepalm reading the headline... "nazi uprising"... wtf? I dont even believe the numbers of this survey but even 9 % is not an uprising. and why are only 1.5% voting for the npd if ther was an uprising?
i dunno where this discussion should be going? education + perspective and it shouldnt happen.
On November 13 2012 03:51 BlACKTrA wrote: Just google
"Gert Hoffmann", the major of braunschweig, now a CDU member , but former NPD member
their are many others but I forgot their names... and yes there are politicians rotating in both directions from CDU to NPD and the other way around
To be fair, Hoffmann dismissed it as a sin of his youth and is condemning the NPD and Nazi ideology nowadays (I'm from Braunschweig btw and I was despairing that he was actually reelected).
On November 13 2012 02:36 zalz wrote: Nazi's simply were not socialists. The socialist parts of the party were marginalized and executed during the night of the long knives.
They are as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.
-
Also, one cannot seperate the crimes of the Nazi regime from its economical achievements. The economic strides that Nazi Germany were the result of its military build-up. The entire foundation would have fallen out from under it, had they not gone to war.
The only way to make military keynesianism viable is through going to war before the bill is presented.
The murder of millions is the direct result of the economic policies of Nazi-Germany.
Had they not gone to war, their economy could not have sustained itself. Everyone in Europe was sacrificed upon the altar of German recovery.
Fascism and Socialism are both forms of collectivism. That's all that matters, the rest are just details. There is not a war between the Left and the Right, they are both marching towards the state. There is a war between the individualists and the collectivists. What occurred in Germany was the culmination of collectivist logic, what occurred in the USSR was the culmination of collectivist logic. Nazi Germany and USSR and dozens of other authoritarian states were simply collectivism freed from the individualist tradition which might hamper its full realization. It was socialism which was the catalyst to drive out from Germany everything that was liberal.
"There are no liberals in Germany today; there are young revolutionaries: there are young conservatives. But who would be a liberal? Liberalism is a philosophy of life from which German youth now turns with nausea, with wrath, with quite peculiar scorn, for there is none more foreign, more repugnant, more opposed to its philosophy. German youth today recognize the liberal as the archenemy." -Moeller van den Bruck
"Because in the sphere of ideas Germany was the most convinced exponent of all socialist dreams, and in the sphere of reality she was the most powerful architect of the most highly organized economic system. In us is the twentieth century. However the war may end, we are the exemplary people. Our ideas will determine the aims of the life of humanity. "The war economy is the first realization of a socialist society and its spirit is the first active appearance of a socialist spirit. The needs of war have established the socialist idea in German economic life, and thus the defense of our nation produced for humanity the idea of 1914, the idea of German organization, the people's community of national socialism.. State and economic life form a new unity... The feeling of economic responsibility which characterizes the work of the civil servant pervades all private activity. It is high time to recognize the fact that socialism must be power policy, because it is to be organization. Socialism has to win power: it must never blindly destroy power. "Just from the point of view of socialism, which is organization, is not an absolute right of self determination of the peoples the right to individualistic economic anarchy? Are we willing to grant complete self-determination to the individual in economic life? Consistent socialism can accord to the people a right to incorporation only in accordance with the real distribution of forces historically determined." - Johann Plenge
"Germany wants to organize Europe which up to now still lacks organization. I will explain to you now Germany's great secret: we, or perhaps the German race, have discovered the significance of organization. While the other nations still live under the regime of individualism, we have already achieved that of organization." -Wilhelm Ostwald
"Or, to put it more plainly, our conceptions of Liberalism, Democracy, and so forth, are derived from the ideas of English Individualism, according to which a state with a weak government is a liberal state, and every restriction upon the freedom of the individual is conceived as the product of autocracy and militarism. "This class of people, who unconsciously reason from English standards, compromises the whole educated German bourgeoisie. Their political notions of 'freedom' and 'civic right,' of constitutionalism and parliamentarianism, are derived from that individualistic conception of the world, of which English Liberalism is a classical embodiment, and which was adopted, by the spokemen of the German bourgeoisie in the fifties, sixties, and seventies of the nineteenth century. But these standards are old-fashioned and shattered... What has to be done now is to get rid of these inherited political ideas and to assist the growth of a new conception of State and Society. In this sphere Socialism must present a conscious and determined opposition to individualism. "The state has undergone a process of socialization, and Social Democracy has undergone a process of nationalization." - Paul Lensch
"The German, more correctly, Prussian, instinct is this: the power belongs to the whole... Everyone is given his place. One commands or obeys. This is, since the eighteenth century, authoritarian socialism, essentially illiberal and anti-democratic, in so far as the English Liberalism and French Democracy are meant... There are in Germany many hated and ill-reputed contrasts, but liberalism alone is contemptible on German soil." -Oswald Spengler
Look, we get it, you think The Road to Serfdom is the greatest thing ever. It really is too bad more people have not read it; too many "Austrians" get away with transparent parroting like that evidenced above.
On November 13 2012 03:54 SpikeStarcraft wrote: I can only facepalm reading the headline... "nazi uprising"... wtf? I dont even believe the numbers of this survey but even 9 % is not an uprising. and why are only 1.5% voting for the npd if ther was an uprising?
i dunno where this discussion should be going? education + perspective and it shouldnt happen.
There aren't 9%. Threadstarter is fearmongering on fox news level. If you have time, you can actually read the study presented, it is linked somewhere in this thread.
On November 13 2012 00:12 kafkaesque wrote:NPD-member ofttimes gather in large numbers to March for their misguided cause and try to recruit members.
To be fair: in the western parts of Germany those marches usually count a few hundred maximum and are almost always severely outnumbered by demonstrants against exactly this march.
On November 13 2012 03:13 The KY wrote: Yes, Hitler's economic policies were revolutionary. I particularly liked when he seized all the property from jewish people and other minorities, didn't allow women to work (and did not count them or the jews as unemployed), and built an economy largely around militarisation and also coincidentally an enormous deficit.
history is not about morals. it's about success. And there is no denying that the German Empire between 1933 and 1942 was incredibly successful. Does not mean we should repeat their strategy because TODAY our morality counts, some things are just not acceptable anymore.
I don't see how you can call that success? You have to see the whole story man and it was not like they made some bad decisions in 1942 and that led to their downfall but everyhting untl then was clean and shiny. Where they were in 1945 is a direct consequence of the years before (sure, many thing worsened due to bad leadership but I dare to say being at war with the Soviets, the UK, USA and basically everyone else in the world barring Japan and Italy is not a story of success...
Power always is success. If the war would have turned out the other way (people generally have no idea how close that was on both fronts) Germany would probably have covered most of Eurasia and northern Africa. Even if I would not want to live in that world, I would call that success.
On November 13 2012 03:27 sephiria wrote: As a historian and a german citizen I would like to point something out: The NPD is a democratic party and allowed in germany. It is also NOT a conservative party in any way. It is NOT related to the NSDAP (which is banned). On a federal/state level, the NPD does not hold any power and its voters and supporters are constantly threatened with bodily harm and loss of social perspective. Social gatherings of their organisations are regularly disrupted which is against the law that protects the right to demonstrate and the freedom of speech, however, facist behaviour by left partys and politicians is widely tolerated. If you have at some point been in a relationship with someone who, at some point, was a member of the NPD you can lose your job for no reason (except for "wrong friends") Since left partys are fed by the general fear of "nazis" the left media likes to overstate the threat. The german right is the weakest in Europe.
apart from the point of "we want to decrease the number of immigrants" the NPD has a stunningly similar party program to the radical german left (which commits more political crimes per year, is massively stronger and has public support even from non radicals). I think they both should be allowed but monitored closely. As every populist party, both are dangerous, but the NPD does not wield any power.
@Huyugu you seem to know what you are talking about. a fellow historian?
saying the NPD the democratic is plain wrong.... they are permitted but just look at their election posters and tell me again that they arent racist The NPD is controlled by the "BND" & "BKA" all the time for good reasons.... And the NPD is conservative party because otherwise many voters wouldn´t rotate between NPD and CDU Even many politician at the NPD were CDU politicians before!
But still the left wing member are numerous and currently violent aswell
racism and democracy are unrelated (US like 80 years ago? canada in the early '40s? no democracys?)
and no, I am conservative. I know the difference. People just start to vote NPD because there is no conservative party in germany (and dont say cdu). So they vote what 'feels' right-wing. Most probably haven't even read the NPD party program.
Just look at the paragraphs of the "Grundgesetze" I think there are parts which tell us that racism and democracy may not be combined in Germay
On November 13 2012 03:27 sephiria wrote: As a historian and a german citizen I would like to point something out: The NPD is a democratic party and allowed in germany. It is also NOT a conservative party in any way. It is NOT related to the NSDAP (which is banned). On a federal/state level, the NPD does not hold any power and its voters and supporters are constantly threatened with bodily harm and loss of social perspective. Social gatherings of their organisations are regularly disrupted which is against the law that protects the right to demonstrate and the freedom of speech, however, facist behaviour by left partys and politicians is widely tolerated. If you have at some point been in a relationship with someone who, at some point, was a member of the NPD you can lose your job for no reason (except for "wrong friends") Since left partys are fed by the general fear of "nazis" the left media likes to overstate the threat. The german right is the weakest in Europe.
apart from the point of "we want to decrease the number of immigrants" the NPD has a stunningly similar party program to the radical german left (which commits more political crimes per year, is massively stronger and has public support even from non radicals). I think they both should be allowed but monitored closely. As every populist party, both are dangerous, but the NPD does not wield any power.
@Huyugu you seem to know what you are talking about. a fellow historian?
saying the NPD the democratic is plain wrong.... they are permitted but just look at their election posters and tell me again that they arent racist The NPD is controlled by the "BND" & "BKA" all the time for good reasons.... And the NPD is conservative party because otherwise many voters wouldn´t rotate between NPD and CDU Even many politician at the NPD were CDU politicians before!
But still the left wing member are numerous and currently violent aswell
racism and democracy are unrelated (US like 80 years ago? canada in the early '40s? no democracys?)
and no, I am conservative. I know the difference. People just start to vote NPD because there is no conservative party in germany (and dont say cdu). So they vote what 'feels' right-wing. Most probably haven't even read the NPD party program.
Just look at the paragraphs of the "Grundgesetze" I think there are parts which tell us that racism and democracy may not be combined in Germay
I know the Grundgesetz. but just because the law forbids the combination does not mean you can not combine them. public displays of racism is unlawful in germany, doesn't mean you can't be a racist (which is, btw an opinion, and like one says "thoughts are free" and not a crime as long as you dont act on it.)
a left wing company, calling themselves "foundation", but getting 150mio € every year from the taxpayer, try to make themselves look important and get even more money from the taxpayer.
god, i wait for the day when people like that say:"ok, work is done, lets go home and do something other." instead they lift every stone and turn every stick to find the last nazi and to squeeze the last euro out of people who react to their scheme.
i live in the city, in the rhein-main-area with 5.5 mio people for 20 years now, and i never saw or spoke to a nazi. and when 9% of the people are nazis, i couldn't care less, as long as they vote democratic.
to the op: sorry, you have been tricked. the "friedrich ebert foundation" today released a book "Die Mitte im Umbruch" that tries to show that there are many, many nazis in germany. do you really expect a study from this organisation that shows, that there is _no_ nazi problem in germany? and your article and the book release today is too much of a coincidence for me to not notice. viral marketing for beginners?
On November 13 2012 03:27 sephiria wrote: As a historian and a german citizen I would like to point something out: The NPD is a democratic party and allowed in germany. It is also NOT a conservative party in any way. It is NOT related to the NSDAP (which is banned). On a federal/state level, the NPD does not hold any power and its voters and supporters are constantly threatened with bodily harm and loss of social perspective. Social gatherings of their organisations are regularly disrupted which is against the law that protects the right to demonstrate and the freedom of speech, however, facist behaviour by left partys and politicians is widely tolerated. If you have at some point been in a relationship with someone who, at some point, was a member of the NPD you can lose your job for no reason (except for "wrong friends") Since left partys are fed by the general fear of "nazis" the left media likes to overstate the threat. The german right is the weakest in Europe.
apart from the point of "we want to decrease the number of immigrants" the NPD has a stunningly similar party program to the radical german left (which commits more political crimes per year, is massively stronger and has public support even from non radicals). I think they both should be allowed but monitored closely. As every populist party, both are dangerous, but the NPD does not wield any power.
@Huyugu you seem to know what you are talking about. a fellow historian?
saying the NPD the democratic is plain wrong.... they are permitted but just look at their election posters and tell me again that they arent racist The NPD is controlled by the "BND" & "BKA" all the time for good reasons.... And the NPD is conservative party because otherwise many voters wouldn´t rotate between NPD and CDU Even many politician at the NPD were CDU politicians before!
But still the left wing member are numerous and currently violent aswell
racism and democracy are unrelated (US like 80 years ago? canada in the early '40s? no democracys?)
and no, I am conservative. I know the difference. People just start to vote NPD because there is no conservative party in germany (and dont say cdu). So they vote what 'feels' right-wing. Most probably haven't even read the NPD party program.
Just look at the paragraphs of the "Grundgesetze" I think there are parts which tell us that racism and democracy may not be combined in Germay
I know the Grundgesetz. but just because the law forbids the combination does not mean you can not combine them. public displays of racism is unlawful in germany, doesn't mean you can't be a racist (which is, btw an opinion, and like one says "thoughts are free" and not a crime as long as you dont act on it.)
yeah, but only your thoughts there cant be a racist party involved in politics and that´s the point
I'm extremely fascinated by the fact that neonazi groups in eastern Europe and Russia greet with the Nazi salute (Roman/Bellamy salute whatever) even though Hitler rated Slavic peoples as untermensch.
On November 13 2012 00:32 Xpace wrote: This is indeed scary, but hardly surprising. Every country has their share of these idiots.
If you grow up in Germany, you will be thoroughly educated about the Nazi Party. The history of the Third Reich is mandatory part of your historical education and secondary schools frequently have week-long projects to further awareness of the horrors of Hitler's Germany. Chances are, you will at one point visit one of the concentration camps of Buchenwald or Auschwitz and schools go through great lenghts to get jewish orators who have witnessed Nazi Germany first hand. History programs on TV eat up that chapter as well and the Federal Agency for Civic Education offers a plethora of different magazines for free so one can educate oneself even further.
Amazing if true. I look at countries like Japan who are being hated on by their neighbors because they are not educating the general population about WW2 and the atrocities of the Empire of the Rising Sun, and would rather focus on how they are the only victims (Hiroshima/Nagasaki). That's equally as sickening as this. Germans are actually educated about the Nazis!
Well I think people of Japan are educated enough to know what kind of war crimes happened without needed to push to the edge. War is always dirty and WW2 was long war.
As my great-grandfather was a member of Chinese army (if you could call it that) against Japanese in WW2, I am clearly biased. But first of all, this topic is a whole different cat than the one outlined in OP. Second, the "war is always dirty" could hardly be an excuse to gloss over atrocities that some Japanese created during that time. Contrast Japanese treatment of POW and treatment of Japanese POW should be enough to shatter the "war is dirty" rhetoric. That's without mentioning the massacres or gruesome human experiments they carried out.
Enough on that already. It is hardly a surprise for anyone that in this time of economic depression, xenophobia in its extreme form would rise their head again. To be fair, Germany had not always been the friendliest place for immigrant to begin with. In my opinion, the pragmatic approach is to prevent violent extremists from getting anything. As of right now, they aren't, so I am not very alarmed about the current situation.
OP should really update the topic with more infos, people who dont go through all the pages and just read the first post will get quite the wrong idea....
On November 13 2012 03:13 The KY wrote: Yes, Hitler's economic policies were revolutionary. I particularly liked when he seized all the property from jewish people and other minorities, didn't allow women to work (and did not count them or the jews as unemployed), and built an economy largely around militarisation and also coincidentally an enormous deficit.
history is not about morals. it's about success. And there is no denying that the German Empire between 1933 and 1942 was incredibly successful. Does not mean we should repeat their strategy because TODAY our morality counts, some things are just not acceptable anymore.
I don't believe in total moral relativism though, so success built on the back of classing a section of your citizens as sub human is not success in my eyes. And as another poster said, the downfall of the German Empire was a result of the actions before it. It's not like everything went swimmingly until one bad decision happened; WW2 and it's consequences for Germany were the inevitable result of the policies, economic and otherwise, of Hitler and the Nazis.
On November 13 2012 04:08 cari-kira wrote: omg please..
a left wing company, calling themselves "foundation", but getting 150mio € every year from the taxpayer, try to make themselves look important and get even more money from the taxpayer.
god, i wait for the day when people like that say:"ok, work is done, lets go home and do something other." instead they lift every stone and turn every stick to find the last nazi and to squeeze the last euro out of people who react to their scheme.
i live in the city, in the rhein-main-area with 5.5 mio people for 20 years now, and i never saw or spoke to a nazi. and when 9% of the people are nazis, i couldn't care less, as long as they vote democratic.
to the op: sorry, you have been tricked. the "friedrich ebert foundation" today released a book "Die Mitte im Umbruch" that tries to show that there are many, many nazis in germany. do you really expect a study from this organisation that shows, that there is _no_ nazi problem in germany? and your article and the book release today is too much of a coincidence for me to not notice. viral marketing for beginners?
thanks for the post. This thread actually reassured me that there are still a lot of people around who actually do their own thinking and are not sucked in by the "nazis everywhere" industry.
On November 13 2012 04:08 cari-kira wrote: omg please..
a left wing company, calling themselves "foundation", but getting 150mio € every year from the taxpayer, try to make themselves look important and get even more money from the taxpayer.
god, i wait for the day when people like that say:"ok, work is done, lets go home and do something other." instead they lift every stone and turn every stick to find the last nazi and to squeeze the last euro out of people who react to their scheme.
i live in the city, in the rhein-main-area with 5.5 mio people for 20 years now, and i never saw or spoke to a nazi. and when 9% of the people are nazis, i couldn't care less, as long as they vote democratic.
to the op: sorry, you have been tricked. the "friedrich ebert foundation" today released a book "Die Mitte im Umbruch" that tries to show that there are many, many nazis in germany. do you really expect a study from this organisation that shows, that there is _no_ nazi problem in germany? and your article and the book release today is too much of a coincidence for me to not notice. viral marketing for beginners?
The Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung is the SPD-near foundation for political education. There is one such foundation for every party in the parliament. They receive federal support due to law and are a part of our party system, they are not companies as you falsely claim. You of course have to be aware that they are not politically neutral and in fact some of the questions of their study are suggestive (especially the ones regarding immigrants are citicized), and their conclusion is a bit alarmistic to create attention, but the core conclusion that Nazi ideology is on the rise still stands and is something that we as a society should be aware of.
On November 13 2012 03:27 sephiria wrote: As a historian and a german citizen I would like to point something out: The NPD is a democratic party and allowed in germany. It is also NOT a conservative party in any way. It is NOT related to the NSDAP (which is banned). On a federal/state level, the NPD does not hold any power and its voters and supporters are constantly threatened with bodily harm and loss of social perspective. Social gatherings of their organisations are regularly disrupted which is against the law that protects the right to demonstrate and the freedom of speech, however, facist behaviour by left partys and politicians is widely tolerated. If you have at some point been in a relationship with someone who, at some point, was a member of the NPD you can lose your job for no reason (except for "wrong friends") Since left partys are fed by the general fear of "nazis" the left media likes to overstate the threat. The german right is the weakest in Europe.
apart from the point of "we want to decrease the number of immigrants" the NPD has a stunningly similar party program to the radical german left (which commits more political crimes per year, is massively stronger and has public support even from non radicals). I think they both should be allowed but monitored closely. As every populist party, both are dangerous, but the NPD does not wield any power.
@Huyugu you seem to know what you are talking about. a fellow historian?
saying the NPD the democratic is plain wrong.... they are permitted but just look at their election posters and tell me again that they arent racist The NPD is controlled by the "BND" & "BKA" all the time for good reasons.... And the NPD is conservative party because otherwise many voters wouldn´t rotate between NPD and CDU Even many politician at the NPD were CDU politicians before!
But still the left wing member are numerous and currently violent aswell
racism and democracy are unrelated (US like 80 years ago? canada in the early '40s? no democracys?)
and no, I am conservative. I know the difference. People just start to vote NPD because there is no conservative party in germany (and dont say cdu). So they vote what 'feels' right-wing. Most probably haven't even read the NPD party program.
Just look at the paragraphs of the "Grundgesetze" I think there are parts which tell us that racism and democracy may not be combined in Germay
I know the Grundgesetz. but just because the law forbids the combination does not mean you can not combine them. public displays of racism is unlawful in germany, doesn't mean you can't be a racist (which is, btw an opinion, and like one says "thoughts are free" and not a crime as long as you dont act on it.)
yeah, but only your thoughts there cant be a racist party involved in politics and that´s the point
as far as I know it would be classified as volksverhetzung which would lead to a ban of the NPD. That didn't happen. Authorities have not (yet) classified NPD as racist under the law, which means they are allowed to operate which means they are classified as fullfilling the necessary democratic standards. So they are (for now) an acceptable democratic party?
For crying out loud the only useful thing I got out of this thread was that apparently I have not read such threads in ages as the last time I saw zalz he was a tank.
On November 13 2012 04:13 freewareplayer wrote: OP should really update the topic with more infos, people who dont go through all the pages and just read the first post will get quite the wrong idea....
Based on his post, I would tend to think that reality just doesn't fit his quite obvious agends, so you shouldn't get your hopes up too much.
Being German, my personal opinion is that I have not seen any shift towards a more radical society in recent time.
Of course, anecdote does not equal evidence, but here we go:
a) My neighbor is pretty much as conservative as you can be (stout catholic, active member of the 'Junge Union' and even went to the 'Schuelerverbindung' of his Gymnasium) and he has yet to shave his head. Ok, I'm kidding, but even drunk, he does not start spouting nonsense about foreigners ruining this country
b) my gf is (and looks) foreign, she does not experience any discrimination, her main complaints are 'public transport in the countryside sucks' and 'bureaucracy'.
When the "mainstream" politicians get too involved in sniffing each other's buttholes and acting like they are entitled to power just because, fringe parties gain power.
Because fringe parties really are sincere in their concerns for "the people." They are just crazy about who "the people" are and what the concerns should be. But since they are sincere in their vision, they make a connection with (some) frustrated citizens that the mainstream parties cannot make anymore.
Because those mainstream parties, particularly in the EU, really don't care. They don't expect to ever really be taken away from the levers of power.
It's no wonder that parties that are pissed off and frustrated and sincere when they say they care about X attract more voters when people in general are more pissed off and frustrated than they usually are, and when the parties that have been in power forever (or at least alternating power with other parties forever) are not sincere about caring for the "common man" anymore.
On November 13 2012 04:20 DeepElemBlues wrote: When the "mainstream" politicians get too involved in sniffing each other's buttholes and acting like they are entitled to power just because, fringe parties gain power.
Because fringe parties really are sincere in their concerns for "the people." They are just crazy about who "the people" are and what the concerns should be. But since they are sincere in their vision, they make a connection with (some) frustrated citizens that the mainstream parties cannot make anymore.
Because those mainstream parties, particularly in the EU, really don't care. They don't expect to ever really be taken away from the levers of power.
It's no wonder that parties that are pissed off and frustrated and sincere when they say they care about X attract more voters when people in general are more pissed off and frustrated than they usually are, and when the parties that have been in power forever (or at least alternating power with other parties forever) are not sincere about caring for the "common man" anymore.
Couldn't really have put it better, politicians in this country try so very, very hard to look like they can connect with the populace and fail just as hard. If they put as much effort into actually giving a fuck who knows what they could achieve...
On November 13 2012 03:13 The KY wrote: Yes, Hitler's economic policies were revolutionary. I particularly liked when he seized all the property from jewish people and other minorities, didn't allow women to work (and did not count them or the jews as unemployed), and built an economy largely around militarisation and also coincidentally an enormous deficit.
history is not about morals. it's about success. And there is no denying that the German Empire between 1933 and 1942 was incredibly successful. Does not mean we should repeat their strategy because TODAY our morality counts, some things are just not acceptable anymore.
I don't believe in total moral relativism though, so success built on the back of classing a section of your citizens as sub human is not success in my eyes. And as another poster said, the downfall of the German Empire was a result of the actions before it. It's not like everything went swimmingly until one bad decision happened; WW2 and it's consequences for Germany were the inevitable result of the policies, economic and otherwise, of Hitler and the Nazis.
I just don't like to apply todays morals to 194X. It just gives the wrong impression of the people that lived then. While I think todays racist are quite backwards, in the 40s you were a freak nearly everywhere in the world if you were not a racist.
No, about half a dozen 'bad' military decisions and problems happened (including but not limited to: the inability of the italians to cease greece, the tactical errors in the west concerning air combat, the declaration of war against the US) which lead to losing the war. The policies of Hitler were aimed at war and it was inevitable, but the outcome was not determined beforehand
im a dedicated nazi and i have evry right to be (freedom of opinion, belief or ideology or whatever). the thing is how you define a nazi and what exact criteria must be fullfilled to qualify as a nazi. i consider myself a nazi but im not rasist or prejudiced. i go to an international school and have jewish friends. im a survey i would say im a nazi which i conside rmyself to be simply cause of the fact that a) it gives me a sense of belonging and b) im hoping to one day lead germany to former glory but this time with peaceful means and alot of flowerpower
not sorry for my bad engliush because fuck you
also an uprising is something different from a rise in the number of "nazis" in germany.
On November 13 2012 04:10 Sjokola wrote: I'm extremely fascinated by the fact that neonazi groups in eastern Europe and Russia greet with the Nazi salute (Roman/Bellamy salute whatever) even though Hitler rated Slavic peoples as untermensch.
turned out we are mensch after all, since we have our nazis too :D
On November 13 2012 04:08 cari-kira wrote: omg please..
a left wing company, calling themselves "foundation", but getting 150mio € every year from the taxpayer, try to make themselves look important and get even more money from the taxpayer.
god, i wait for the day when people like that say:"ok, work is done, lets go home and do something other." instead they lift every stone and turn every stick to find the last nazi and to squeeze the last euro out of people who react to their scheme.
i live in the city, in the rhein-main-area with 5.5 mio people for 20 years now, and i never saw or spoke to a nazi. and when 9% of the people are nazis, i couldn't care less, as long as they vote democratic.
to the op: sorry, you have been tricked. the "friedrich ebert foundation" today released a book "Die Mitte im Umbruch" that tries to show that there are many, many nazis in germany. do you really expect a study from this organisation that shows, that there is _no_ nazi problem in germany? and your article and the book release today is too much of a coincidence for me to not notice. viral marketing for beginners?
They get just as much money as the "Konrad Adenauer Stiftung" the conservative counterpart and they do really important work all over the world. The tax-payers money they have is actually spent on the scolarships they give to students. And they actually pump alot of their own money in these scolarships. (I doubt the study was even paid by tax-payers money at all.)
And they didnt "turn every stone", they made a poll and made a statistic. The questions they asked are shown in the report, so are the answers. Thats all. If you want to close your eyes, thats only your problem.
Really man, how much hate do you have in yourself? Just because the FES is slighly left-leaning?
On November 13 2012 03:28 schaf wrote: I think in Germany the whole WW2 education backfired a bit. I agree it has to be done and it's good that we get it in school a lot. But when I was growing up (mid 20s now), it felt like being German is actually a bad thing. You get constantly confronted with the horros and of the past and their guilt. My parents were not a particular help in that regard either as they were heavily influenced by the hippie movement. So, if you grow up in that environment every identification with your nation is basically taken from you (might seem a bit extreme, but with me that was the case) and if you want to be a non-conformist or a rebel in school, you look for things that are 'forbidden'.
The NPD is a joke. But they actually have a good strategy. They do offers for young people in areas where there is nothing else, do free jurisdictional advice for unemployed people, do community festivals - and the people buy it. It works.
All in all, I wouldn't call all followers of the NPD as Neo-Nazis.
And there are countries who have a much more severe problem with this, for example Russia (yes!):
When I first visited Berlin several years ago, I stood under the Brandenburger Tor, with a plaque detailing the glorious events of March 1848, supposed to remind us of the best political traditions of Germany's ancestors, in contrast to 1870 and 1933. The plaque commemorated Germany's first liberal-democrats, how they rose up for their rights against an authoritarian regime, how they for a wrinkle in time seized the destiny of the nation and seemed to propel it to a hopeful future.
This is the kind of dogma, half naive, half ridiculous, which is being commonly propagated as "History" in Germany today, in classrooms, media and the popular imagination. The National Assembly which assembled in Frankfurt in 1848 eventually perished under the duress of its own national radicalism, and was forced to prostitute itself out to Frederick William IV, who wound up protecting his "democrats" from the people, but rightly refused to pick his crown up from the gutter. No one today will teach 1848 as an object lesson in the failures of historical German liberalism and constitutionalism, an episode whose multifaceted complexities, by the way, would have been more profoundly understood under the classical curricula of such authoritarian regimes as Bismarck's Prussia or Hitler's National Socialist Germany than by the historically tone-deaf people of today.
It is being trumpeted as a milestone event in the progress of Germany because national curriculum of self-censorship has practically eradicated all other political achievements from German memory. It has painted the sweep of Germany with a broad brush and, while subscribing to the Sonderweg theory that all of Germany's history must be read under the dim shadow of the Third Reich, occasionally pretends to promote Germany's Western legacy by citing and mis-citing such episodes as the March Revolution or Operation Walküre. This kind of post ex-facto ideological manipulation exists all over the place. The German Biedermeier is more properly the teleological Vormärz, the War Credits vote of the SPD in 1914 is now seen as an departure from political norms in German history, rather than its conformity to it.
This is all perhaps only ephemerally relevant to the issue at hand. Looking at the OP, however, and reading the report by the Friederich-Ebert-Stiftung, it's obvious that some things are being misrepresented. In the Spiegel-polls, the NDP does not command enough support to enter any State parliament in Germany apart from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where the polls show them at 6%. The Survey of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung has a list of questions so leading, that sometimes an answer which reveals a discerning historical understanding will be registered ideologically as “Rechtsextrem”
i.e.
Question 1:
Im nationalen Interesse ist unter bestimmten Umständen eine Diktatur die bessere Staatsform
Quite apart from the fact that this question betrays a lack of understanding as to what Dictatorship is, a classical scholar who admires Sulla might agree to this statement, and be labelled an extremist. The leading clause is the stipulation “unter bestimmten Umständen,” which vastly inflates the number of people who will be labelled inaccurately.
Question 2:
Ohne Judenvernichtung würde man Hitler heute als großen Staatsmann ansehen.
The leading aspect of this question is raised by its very hypothetical nature. You might as well ask if Hitler behaved as Mother Theresa, would he be seen as a saint today? The question is deliberately drawing on the great Hitler-biographer Joachim Fest's assertion in the introduction of his 1974 biography: Shall we call him great?
Fest asserted in his biograhpy that had Hitler died in 1938, he would have gone down in history as the greatest of German statesmen, surpassing Bismarck. These are debatable, but not trivial postulations. Yet under the consideration of the F-E-Stiftung, a lifelong bourgeois conservative like Fest would have been labelled an extremist.
The list goes on and on, deducing folly from folly. Finally all this “information” is reduced to a number ready for publication. After a long, exhaustive, methodological study, the final results conclude that the percentage of people holding extreme-right attitudes in Germany have grown from 6.6 percent to 15.8 percent. People are shocked. New resolutions are made from the left to accelerate the social and mental terraforming of the nation. We have to make German history even more mendacious and crude. We have to educate people better. We have to address socio-economic inequality.
Call me old-fashioned, but I have a better thermometer of measuring the presence of extremism in modern life. I go on the internet and see which people are going into a crazed frenzy calling everything else extreme.
On November 13 2012 04:08 cari-kira wrote: omg please..
a left wing company, calling themselves "foundation", but getting 150mio € every year from the taxpayer, try to make themselves look important and get even more money from the taxpayer.
god, i wait for the day when people like that say:"ok, work is done, lets go home and do something other." instead they lift every stone and turn every stick to find the last nazi and to squeeze the last euro out of people who react to their scheme.
i live in the city, in the rhein-main-area with 5.5 mio people for 20 years now, and i never saw or spoke to a nazi. and when 9% of the people are nazis, i couldn't care less, as long as they vote democratic.
to the op: sorry, you have been tricked. the "friedrich ebert foundation" today released a book "Die Mitte im Umbruch" that tries to show that there are many, many nazis in germany. do you really expect a study from this organisation that shows, that there is _no_ nazi problem in germany? and your article and the book release today is too much of a coincidence for me to not notice. viral marketing for beginners?
The Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung is the SPD-near foundation for political education. There is one such foundation for every party in the parliament. They receive federal support due to law and are a part of our party system, they are not companies as you falsely claim. You of course have to be aware that they are not politically neutral and in fact some of the questions of their study are suggestive (especially the ones regarding immigrants are citicized), and their conclusion is a bit alarmistic to create attention, but the core conclusion that Nazi ideology is on the rise still stands and is something that we as a society should be aware of.
"the core conclusion that Nazi ideology is on the rise still stands" what? i never heard any facts from you to come to a conclusion. try to troll somebody else.
On November 13 2012 04:36 lahara wrote: im a dedicated nazi and i have evry right to be (freedom of opinion, belief or ideology or whatever). the thing is how you define a nazi and what exact criteria must be fullfilled to qualify as a nazi. i consider myself a nazi but im not rasist or prejudiced. i go to an international school and have jewish friends. im a survey i would say im a nazi which i conside rmyself to be simply cause of the fact that a) it gives me a sense of belonging and b) im hoping to one day lead germany to former glory but this time with peaceful means and alot of flowerpower
not sorry for my bad engliush because fuck you
also an uprising is something different from a rise in the number of "nazis" in germany.
stupid attention seekr thread -.-
So you adopt an ideology but not one of it's core beliefs?
Then what the hell it's the point of calling yourself a Nazi?, it's like a Catholic who doesn't believe in Jesus. Makes no sense whatsoever. You maybe a fascist, nationalist, authoritarian or a conservative or something like that then.
Just curious to what extent are they Neo-Nazis? Just embracing the political ideology of fascism or is this including all of the racist eugenic nationalism?
On November 13 2012 04:36 lahara wrote: im a dedicated nazi and i have evry right to be (freedom of opinion, belief or ideology or whatever). the thing is how you define a nazi and what exact criteria must be fullfilled to qualify as a nazi. i consider myself a nazi but im not rasist or prejudiced. i go to an international school and have jewish friends. im a survey i would say im a nazi which i conside rmyself to be simply cause of the fact that a) it gives me a sense of belonging and b) im hoping to one day lead germany to former glory but this time with peaceful means and alot of flowerpower
not sorry for my bad engliush because fuck you
also an uprising is something different from a rise in the number of "nazis" in germany.
On November 13 2012 04:08 cari-kira wrote: omg please..
a left wing company, calling themselves "foundation", but getting 150mio € every year from the taxpayer, try to make themselves look important and get even more money from the taxpayer.
god, i wait for the day when people like that say:"ok, work is done, lets go home and do something other." instead they lift every stone and turn every stick to find the last nazi and to squeeze the last euro out of people who react to their scheme.
i live in the city, in the rhein-main-area with 5.5 mio people for 20 years now, and i never saw or spoke to a nazi. and when 9% of the people are nazis, i couldn't care less, as long as they vote democratic.
to the op: sorry, you have been tricked. the "friedrich ebert foundation" today released a book "Die Mitte im Umbruch" that tries to show that there are many, many nazis in germany. do you really expect a study from this organisation that shows, that there is _no_ nazi problem in germany? and your article and the book release today is too much of a coincidence for me to not notice. viral marketing for beginners?
They get just as much money as the "Konrad Adenauer Stiftung" the conservative counterpart and they do really important work all over the world. The tax-payers money they have is actually spent on the scolarships they give to students. And they actually pump alot of their own money in these scolarships. (I doubt the study was even paid by tax-payers money at all.)
And they didnt "turn every stone", they made a poll and made a statistic. The questions they asked are shown in the report, so are the answers. Thats all. If you want to close your eyes, thats only your problem.
Really man, how much hate do you have in yourself? Just because the FES is slighly left-leaning?
If they waste millions of Euros, only to come up with something ridiculous like this "survey" or similar "researches" that basically calls 9 out of 100 Germans NSDAP believers, then the foundation should close down immediately and it's funding be reallocated elsewhere.
On November 13 2012 03:28 schaf wrote: I think in Germany the whole WW2 education backfired a bit. I agree it has to be done and it's good that we get it in school a lot. But when I was growing up (mid 20s now), it felt like being German is actually a bad thing. You get constantly confronted with the horros and of the past and their guilt. My parents were not a particular help in that regard either as they were heavily influenced by the hippie movement. So, if you grow up in that environment every identification with your nation is basically taken from you (might seem a bit extreme, but with me that was the case) and if you want to be a non-conformist or a rebel in school, you look for things that are 'forbidden'.
The NPD is a joke. But they actually have a good strategy. They do offers for young people in areas where there is nothing else, do free jurisdictional advice for unemployed people, do community festivals - and the people buy it. It works.
All in all, I wouldn't call all followers of the NPD as Neo-Nazis.
And there are countries who have a much more severe problem with this, for example Russia (yes!):
When I first visited Berlin several years ago, I stood under the Brandenburger Tor, with a plaque detailing the glorious events of March 1848, supposed to remind us of the best political traditions of Germany's ancestors, in contrast to 1870 and 1933. The plaque commemorated Germany's first liberal-democrats, how they rose up for their rights against an authoritarian regime, how they for a wrinkle in time seized the destiny of the nation and seemed to propel it to a hopeful future.
This is the kind of dogma, half naive, half ridiculous, which is being commonly propagated as "History" in Germany today, in classrooms, media and the popular imagination. The National Assembly which assembled in Frankfurt in 1848 eventually perished under the duress of its own national radicalism, and was forced to prostitute itself out to Frederick William IV, who wound up protecting his "democrats" from the people, but rightly refused to pick his crown up from the gutter. No one today will teach 1848 as an object lesson in the failures of historical German liberalism and constitutionalism, an episode whose multifaceted complexities, by the way, would have been more profoundly understood under the classical curricula of such authoritarian regimes as Bismarck's Prussia or Hitler's National Socialist Germany than by the historically tone-deaf people of today.
It is being trumpeted as a milestone event in the progress of Germany because national curriculum of self-censorship has practically eradicated all other political achievements from German memory. It has painted the sweep of Germany with a broad brush and, while subscribing to the Sonderweg theory that all of Germany's history must be read under the dim shadow of the Third Reich, occasionally pretends to promote Germany's Western legacy by citing and mis-citing such episodes as the March Revolution or Operation Walküre. This kind of post ex-facto ideological manipulation exists all over the place. The German Biedermeier is more properly the teleological Vormärz, the War Credits vote of the SPD in 1914 is now seen as an departure from political norms in German history, rather than its conformity to it.
This is all perhaps only ephemerally relevant to the issue at hand. Looking at the OP, however, and reading the report by the Friederich-Ebert-Stiftung, it's obvious that some things are being misrepresented. In the Spiegel-polls, the NDP does not command enough support to enter any State parliament in Germany apart from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where the polls show them at 6%. The Survey of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung has a list of questions so leading, that sometimes an answer which reveals a discerning historical understanding will be registered ideologically as “Rechtsextrem”
i.e.
Question 1:
Im nationalen Interesse ist unter bestimmten Umständen eine Diktatur die bessere Staatsform
Quite apart from the fact that this question betrays a lack of understanding as to what Dictatorship is, a classical scholar who admires Sulla might agree to this statement, and be labelled an extremist. The leading clause is the stipulation “unter bestimmten Umständen,” which vastly inflates the number of people who will be labelled inaccurately.
Question 2:
Ohne Judenvernichtung würde man Hitler heute als großen Staatsmann ansehen.
The leading aspect of this question is raised by its very hypothetical nature. You might as well ask if Hitler behaved as Mother Theresa, would he be seen as a saint today? The question is deliberately drawing on the great Hitler-biographer Joachim Fest's assertion in the introduction of his 1974 biography: Shall we call him great?
Fest asserted in his biograhpy that had Hitler died in 1938, he would have gone down in history as the greatest of German statesmen, surpassing Bismarck. These are debatable, but not trivial postulations. Yet under the consideration of the F-E-Stiftung, a lifelong bourgeois conservative like Fest would have been labelled an extremist.
The list goes on and on, deducing folly from folly. Finally all this “information” is reduced to a number ready for publication. After a long, exhaustive, methodological study, the final results conclude that the percentage of people holding extreme-right attitudes in Germany have grown from 6.6 percent to 15.8 percent. People are shocked. New resolutions are made from the left to accelerate the social and mental terraforming of the nation. We have to make German history even more mendacious and crude. We have to educate people better. We have to address socio-economic inequality.
Call me old-fashioned, but I have a better thermometer of measuring the presence of extremism in modern life. I go on the internet and see which people are going into a crazed frenzy calling everything else extreme.
This post was a highly enjoyable read, I recommend everyone read this before thinking too hard on the "evidence" presented in the OP.
On November 13 2012 04:36 lahara wrote: im a dedicated nazi and i have evry right to be (freedom of opinion, belief or ideology or whatever). the thing is how you define a nazi and what exact criteria must be fullfilled to qualify as a nazi. i consider myself a nazi but im not rasist or prejudiced. i go to an international school and have jewish friends. im a survey i would say im a nazi which i conside rmyself to be simply cause of the fact that a) it gives me a sense of belonging and b) im hoping to one day lead germany to former glory but this time with peaceful means and alot of flowerpower
not sorry for my bad engliush because fuck you
also an uprising is something different from a rise in the number of "nazis" in germany.
stupid attention seekr thread -.-
So you adopt an ideology but not one of it's core beliefs?
Then what the hell it's the point of calling yourself a Nazi?, it's like a Catholic who doesn't believe in Jesus. Makes no sense whatsoever. You maybe a fascist, nationalist, authoritarian or a conservative or something like that then.
i alrdy said why i consider myself a nazi : a) it gives me a sense of belonging b) a load of stupid jibberish
From what he said, he's just a nationalist-militarist. 'Germany returned to former glory.' The only glory Germany once had that she doesn't now is military glory.
On November 13 2012 03:28 schaf wrote: I think in Germany the whole WW2 education backfired a bit. I agree it has to be done and it's good that we get it in school a lot. But when I was growing up (mid 20s now), it felt like being German is actually a bad thing. You get constantly confronted with the horros and of the past and their guilt. My parents were not a particular help in that regard either as they were heavily influenced by the hippie movement. So, if you grow up in that environment every identification with your nation is basically taken from you (might seem a bit extreme, but with me that was the case) and if you want to be a non-conformist or a rebel in school, you look for things that are 'forbidden'.
The NPD is a joke. But they actually have a good strategy. They do offers for young people in areas where there is nothing else, do free jurisdictional advice for unemployed people, do community festivals - and the people buy it. It works.
All in all, I wouldn't call all followers of the NPD as Neo-Nazis.
And there are countries who have a much more severe problem with this, for example Russia (yes!):
When I first visited Berlin several years ago, I stood under the Brandenburger Tor, with a plaque detailing the glorious events of March 1848, supposed to remind us of the best political traditions of Germany's ancestors, in contrast to 1870 and 1933. The plaque commemorated Germany's first liberal-democrats, how they rose up for their rights against an authoritarian regime, how they for a wrinkle in time seized the destiny of the nation and seemed to propel it to a hopeful future.
This is the kind of dogma, half naive, half ridiculous, which is being commonly propagated as "History" in Germany today, in classrooms, media and the popular imagination. The National Assembly which assembled in Frankfurt in 1848 eventually perished under the duress of its own national radicalism, and was forced to prostitute itself out to Frederick William IV, who wound up protecting his "democrats" from the people, but rightly refused to pick his crown up from the gutter. No one today will teach 1848 as an object lesson in the failures of historical German liberalism and constitutionalism, an episode whose multifaceted complexities, by the way, would have been more profoundly understood under the classical curricula of such authoritarian regimes as Bismarck's Prussia or Hitler's National Socialist Germany than by the historically tone-deaf people of today.
It is being trumpeted as a milestone event in the progress of Germany because national curriculum of self-censorship has practically eradicated all other political achievements from German memory. It has painted the sweep of Germany with a broad brush and, while subscribing to the Sonderweg theory that all of Germany's history must be read under the dim shadow of the Third Reich, occasionally pretends to promote Germany's Western legacy by citing and mis-citing such episodes as the March Revolution or Operation Walküre. This kind of post ex-facto ideological manipulation exists all over the place. The German Biedermeier is more properly the teleological Vormärz, the War Credits vote of the SPD in 1914 is now seen as an departure from political norms in German history, rather than its conformity to it.
This is all perhaps only ephemerally relevant to the issue at hand. Looking at the OP, however, and reading the report by the Friederich-Ebert-Stiftung, it's obvious that some things are being misrepresented. In the Spiegel-polls, the NDP does not command enough support to enter any State parliament in Germany apart from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where the polls show them at 6%. The Survey of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung has a list of questions so leading, that sometimes an answer which reveals a discerning historical understanding will be registered ideologically as “Rechtsextrem”
i.e.
Question 1:
Im nationalen Interesse ist unter bestimmten Umständen eine Diktatur die bessere Staatsform
Quite apart from the fact that this question betrays a lack of understanding as to what Dictatorship is, a classical scholar who admires Sulla might agree to this statement, and be labelled an extremist. The leading clause is the stipulation “unter bestimmten Umständen,” which vastly inflates the number of people who will be labelled inaccurately.
Question 2:
Ohne Judenvernichtung würde man Hitler heute als großen Staatsmann ansehen.
The leading aspect of this question is raised by its very hypothetical nature. You might as well ask if Hitler behaved as Mother Theresa, would he be seen as a saint today? The question is deliberately drawing on the great Hitler-biographer Joachim Fest's assertion in the introduction of his 1974 biography: Shall we call him great?
Fest asserted in his biograhpy that had Hitler died in 1938, he would have gone down in history as the greatest of German statesmen, surpassing Bismarck. These are debatable, but not trivial postulations. Yet under the consideration of the F-E-Stiftung, a lifelong bourgeois conservative like Fest would have been labelled an extremist.
The list goes on and on, deducing folly from folly. Finally all this “information” is reduced to a number ready for publication. After a long, exhaustive, methodological study, the final results conclude that the percentage of people holding extreme-right attitudes in Germany have grown from 6.6 percent to 15.8 percent. People are shocked. New resolutions are made from the left to accelerate the social and mental terraforming of the nation. We have to make German history even more mendacious and crude. We have to educate people better. We have to address socio-economic inequality.
Call me old-fashioned, but I have a better thermometer of measuring the presence of extremism in modern life. I go on the internet and see which people are going into a crazed frenzy calling everything else extreme.
This post was a highly enjoyable read, I recommend everyone read this before thinking too hard on the "evidence" presented in the OP.
If people had to think about history on a deeper level than progress vs. reaction and freedom vs. tyranny and good vs. bad, they might start thinking about things today on a deeper level, and we can't have that. There are people to do that kind of thinking for us. The right kind of people. Academics, politicos, those kinds of people.
On November 13 2012 04:36 lahara wrote: im a dedicated nazi and i have evry right to be (freedom of opinion, belief or ideology or whatever). the thing is how you define a nazi and what exact criteria must be fullfilled to qualify as a nazi. i consider myself a nazi but im not rasist or prejudiced. i go to an international school and have jewish friends. im a survey i would say im a nazi which i conside rmyself to be simply cause of the fact that a) it gives me a sense of belonging and b) im hoping to one day lead germany to former glory but this time with peaceful means and alot of flowerpower
not sorry for my bad engliush because fuck you
also an uprising is something different from a rise in the number of "nazis" in germany.
On November 13 2012 04:08 cari-kira wrote: omg please..
a left wing company, calling themselves "foundation", but getting 150mio € every year from the taxpayer, try to make themselves look important and get even more money from the taxpayer.
god, i wait for the day when people like that say:"ok, work is done, lets go home and do something other." instead they lift every stone and turn every stick to find the last nazi and to squeeze the last euro out of people who react to their scheme.
i live in the city, in the rhein-main-area with 5.5 mio people for 20 years now, and i never saw or spoke to a nazi. and when 9% of the people are nazis, i couldn't care less, as long as they vote democratic.
to the op: sorry, you have been tricked. the "friedrich ebert foundation" today released a book "Die Mitte im Umbruch" that tries to show that there are many, many nazis in germany. do you really expect a study from this organisation that shows, that there is _no_ nazi problem in germany? and your article and the book release today is too much of a coincidence for me to not notice. viral marketing for beginners?
The Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung is the SPD-near foundation for political education. There is one such foundation for every party in the parliament. They receive federal support due to law and are a part of our party system, they are not companies as you falsely claim. You of course have to be aware that they are not politically neutral and in fact some of the questions of their study are suggestive (especially the ones regarding immigrants are citicized), and their conclusion is a bit alarmistic to create attention, but the core conclusion that Nazi ideology is on the rise still stands and is something that we as a society should be aware of.
"the core conclusion that Nazi ideology is on the rise still stands" what? i never heard any facts from you to come to a conclusion. try to troll somebody else.
I meant the study's conclusion (http://www.fes-gegen-rechtsextremismus.de/pdf_12/mitte-im-umbruch_www.pdf) not mine, I thought that was clear by context. I'm not trying to troll, but rather wanted to correct your false claims.
On November 13 2012 04:36 lahara wrote: im a dedicated nazi and i have evry right to be (freedom of opinion, belief or ideology or whatever). the thing is how you define a nazi and what exact criteria must be fullfilled to qualify as a nazi. i consider myself a nazi but im not rasist or prejudiced. i go to an international school and have jewish friends. im a survey i would say im a nazi which i conside rmyself to be simply cause of the fact that a) it gives me a sense of belonging and b) im hoping to one day lead germany to former glory but this time with peaceful means and alot of flowerpower
not sorry for my bad engliush because fuck you
also an uprising is something different from a rise in the number of "nazis" in germany.
stupid attention seekr thread -.-
You're not a Nazi, you're a fascist/nationalist.
are you trying to restrict my freedom of belief?
No, he's attempting to understand why you are so infatuated with a word as opposed to the ideas that word might represent to you.
On November 13 2012 04:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Just curious to what extent are they Neo-Nazis? Just embracing the political ideology of fascism or is this including all of the racist eugenic nationalism?
If you speak of the 9% mentioned in the OP, actually neither. In reality on federal level we have between 2-3% of the voters who believe in these ideas. It is hard to say who of them believes in fascism or eugenics as they do not reveal their "real" thoughts to the public or the official authorities. The rest of the 9% is pulled out of thin air.
On November 13 2012 04:08 cari-kira wrote: omg please..
a left wing company, calling themselves "foundation", but getting 150mio € every year from the taxpayer, try to make themselves look important and get even more money from the taxpayer.
god, i wait for the day when people like that say:"ok, work is done, lets go home and do something other." instead they lift every stone and turn every stick to find the last nazi and to squeeze the last euro out of people who react to their scheme.
i live in the city, in the rhein-main-area with 5.5 mio people for 20 years now, and i never saw or spoke to a nazi. and when 9% of the people are nazis, i couldn't care less, as long as they vote democratic.
to the op: sorry, you have been tricked. the "friedrich ebert foundation" today released a book "Die Mitte im Umbruch" that tries to show that there are many, many nazis in germany. do you really expect a study from this organisation that shows, that there is _no_ nazi problem in germany? and your article and the book release today is too much of a coincidence for me to not notice. viral marketing for beginners?
They get just as much money as the "Konrad Adenauer Stiftung" the conservative counterpart and they do really important work all over the world. The tax-payers money they have is actually spent on the scolarships they give to students. And they actually pump alot of their own money in these scolarships. (I doubt the study was even paid by tax-payers money at all.)
And they didnt "turn every stone", they made a poll and made a statistic. The questions they asked are shown in the report, so are the answers. Thats all. If you want to close your eyes, thats only your problem.
Really man, how much hate do you have in yourself? Just because the FES is slighly left-leaning?
If they waste millions of Euros, only to come up with something ridiculous like this "survey" or similar "researches" that basically calls 9 out of 100 Germans NSDAP believers, then the foundation should close down immediately and it's funding be reallocated elsewhere.
Not necessarily NSDAP believers, but voters that might sympathize with the NPD. As mentioned, this foundation is close to the SPD, similar foundations exist for every larger party in Germany and are part of our party system.
On November 13 2012 04:36 lahara wrote: im a dedicated nazi and i have evry right to be (freedom of opinion, belief or ideology or whatever). the thing is how you define a nazi and what exact criteria must be fullfilled to qualify as a nazi. i consider myself a nazi but im not rasist or prejudiced. i go to an international school and have jewish friends. im a survey i would say im a nazi which i conside rmyself to be simply cause of the fact that a) it gives me a sense of belonging and b) im hoping to one day lead germany to former glory but this time with peaceful means and alot of flowerpower
not sorry for my bad engliush because fuck you
also an uprising is something different from a rise in the number of "nazis" in germany.
stupid attention seekr thread -.-
You're not a Nazi, you're a fascist/nationalist.
are you trying to restrict my freedom of belief?
No, he's attempting to understand why you are so infatuated with a word as opposed to the ideas that word might represent to you.
oh ok thats cool then. so how does it help him understand when he simply states i am not what i am convinced i am?
On November 13 2012 04:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Just curious to what extent are they Neo-Nazis? Just embracing the political ideology of fascism or is this including all of the racist eugenic nationalism?
A Neo-Nazi is kind of like a Neo-Conservative, a label largely invented by journalism, and doesn't really help in pinning its members down to some kind of historical precedent. According to the F-E-Stiftung, the core qualities surveyed by their questions were ones trying to sniff out people with the following attitudes:
-Sympathy for Dictatorships -Chauvinism -Hostility against foreigners -Anti-Semitism -Social Darwinism -Apologetic of National Socialism
As previously mentioned, the actual survey questions are so crude and full of innuendo, that it's really possible for a normal person to be labeled an extremist.
German Neo-Nazis, as far as I am aware, are anti-EU, anti-American, anti-immigrant, and have a range of domestic positions from liberalism in freedom of speech to left-of-centre economic views. I think generally though, if you admire Hitler and the Third Reich, you're a Neo-Nazi.
On November 13 2012 02:40 Dagobert wrote: Give people a decent education as well as a job (or for kids: a safe place to grow up and play) and extremism will not be an issue.
a safe place to grow up so no muslim immigrants in the neighbourhood? That would confirm my personal experience. The far left are mostly from well off suburbs while the the "right" are the people living with the immigrants.
not at all, exactly the oposite is true, if you look at regional distribution you will see, that it's almost always the parts with least immigrant rates were the far right has get the best election results. This is btw almost comical...
IMO, as others pointed out, the economical situation in the regions in question is far more important to explain the succsess of national parties. Another point seems to be the trend by so called "protest voters". That are mainly people with a rather diffuse agenda, main point is probably to be "against the guys in power". A view years ago a lot of protest voters went for right wing parties like npd or dvu, in the last years there has been a shift to left wing parties or most recently to the pirate party. Therfore, in the moment I don't the much danger from npd and others, even if there is enough trouble by neonational organisations like "kameradschaften".
On November 13 2012 04:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:go ron paul etc because he cares for us
Couldn't really have put it better, politicians in this country try so very, very hard to look like they can connect with the populace and fail just as hard. If they put as much effort into actually giving a fuck who knows what they could achieve...
it's not only politicians who see fringe parties as fringe.
On November 13 2012 03:28 schaf wrote: I think in Germany the whole WW2 education backfired a bit. I agree it has to be done and it's good that we get it in school a lot. But when I was growing up (mid 20s now), it felt like being German is actually a bad thing. You get constantly confronted with the horros and of the past and their guilt. My parents were not a particular help in that regard either as they were heavily influenced by the hippie movement. So, if you grow up in that environment every identification with your nation is basically taken from you (might seem a bit extreme, but with me that was the case) and if you want to be a non-conformist or a rebel in school, you look for things that are 'forbidden'.
The NPD is a joke. But they actually have a good strategy. They do offers for young people in areas where there is nothing else, do free jurisdictional advice for unemployed people, do community festivals - and the people buy it. It works.
All in all, I wouldn't call all followers of the NPD as Neo-Nazis.
And there are countries who have a much more severe problem with this, for example Russia (yes!):
When I first visited Berlin several years ago, I stood under the Brandenburger Tor, with a plaque detailing the glorious events of March 1848, supposed to remind us of the best political traditions of Germany's ancestors, in contrast to 1870 and 1933. The plaque commemorated Germany's first liberal-democrats, how they rose up for their rights against an authoritarian regime, how they for a wrinkle in time seized the destiny of the nation and seemed to propel it to a hopeful future.
This is the kind of dogma, half naive, half ridiculous, which is being commonly propagated as "History" in Germany today, in classrooms, media and the popular imagination. The National Assembly which assembled in Frankfurt in 1848 eventually perished under the duress of its own national radicalism, and was forced to prostitute itself out to Frederick William IV, who wound up protecting his "democrats" from the people, but rightly refused to pick his crown up from the gutter. No one today will teach 1848 as an object lesson in the failures of historical German liberalism and constitutionalism, an episode whose multifaceted complexities, by the way, would have been more profoundly understood under the classical curricula of such authoritarian regimes as Bismarck's Prussia or Hitler's National Socialist Germany than by the historically tone-deaf people of today.
It is being trumpeted as a milestone event in the progress of Germany because national curriculum of self-censorship has practically eradicated all other political achievements from German memory. It has painted the sweep of Germany with a broad brush and, while subscribing to the Sonderweg theory that all of Germany's history must be read under the dim shadow of the Third Reich, occasionally pretends to promote Germany's Western legacy by citing and mis-citing such episodes as the March Revolution or Operation Walküre. This kind of post ex-facto ideological manipulation exists all over the place. The German Biedermeier is more properly the teleological Vormärz, the War Credits vote of the SPD in 1914 is now seen as an departure from political norms in German history, rather than its conformity to it.
This is all perhaps only ephemerally relevant to the issue at hand. Looking at the OP, however, and reading the report by the Friederich-Ebert-Stiftung, it's obvious that some things are being misrepresented. In the Spiegel-polls, the NDP does not command enough support to enter any State parliament in Germany apart from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where the polls show them at 6%. The Survey of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung has a list of questions so leading, that sometimes an answer which reveals a discerning historical understanding will be registered ideologically as “Rechtsextrem”
i.e.
Question 1:
Im nationalen Interesse ist unter bestimmten Umständen eine Diktatur die bessere Staatsform
Quite apart from the fact that this question betrays a lack of understanding as to what Dictatorship is, a classical scholar who admires Sulla might agree to this statement, and be labelled an extremist. The leading clause is the stipulation “unter bestimmten Umständen,” which vastly inflates the number of people who will be labelled inaccurately.
Question 2:
Ohne Judenvernichtung würde man Hitler heute als großen Staatsmann ansehen.
The leading aspect of this question is raised by its very hypothetical nature. You might as well ask if Hitler behaved as Mother Theresa, would he be seen as a saint today? The question is deliberately drawing on the great Hitler-biographer Joachim Fest's assertion in the introduction of his 1974 biography: Shall we call him great?
Fest asserted in his biograhpy that had Hitler died in 1938, he would have gone down in history as the greatest of German statesmen, surpassing Bismarck. These are debatable, but not trivial postulations. Yet under the consideration of the F-E-Stiftung, a lifelong bourgeois conservative like Fest would have been labelled an extremist.
The list goes on and on, deducing folly from folly. Finally all this “information” is reduced to a number ready for publication. After a long, exhaustive, methodological study, the final results conclude that the percentage of people holding extreme-right attitudes in Germany have grown from 6.6 percent to 15.8 percent. People are shocked. New resolutions are made from the left to accelerate the social and mental terraforming of the nation. We have to make German history even more mendacious and crude. We have to educate people better. We have to address socio-economic inequality.
Call me old-fashioned, but I have a better thermometer of measuring the presence of extremism in modern life. I go on the internet and see which people are going into a crazed frenzy calling everything else extreme.
This post was a highly enjoyable read, I recommend everyone read this before thinking too hard on the "evidence" presented in the OP.
disagree. the more 'thoughtful' the more pernicious when it comes to a defense of reactionary thinking. on a tactical level there may be an argument of turning to a more content based examination of the ideas and histories, rather than using sanctions and labels. however, at the same time the shadow of those ideas and histories is quite concrete no matter which approach.
for people who think it's okay, or even glorious, the examination has already been done and they are overruled. they should be condemned with pleasure, and that's all.
that particular post fail to address the intent of these educational efforts. no reference to the banality of evil etc.
Germany is far from the only country in the area where the extreme right has grown a lot. Of course this will lure the Neo nazis in. Especially in Germany I would expect a bit larger growing of the nationalist extremists. There has been the air of remorse and repent for WW2 in policy, diplomacy, almost all aspects(correct me if i am wrong here). Combine that with the current economical difficulties, a growing EU influence and the role Germany plays in EU politics and economy and a rising of the extreme right, but also extreme left are kinda expected. Any movement away from the current state seems quite logical to me, where barely out of/near/in a crisis.
OP, you are saying "despite comprehensive educational matters". I think that because of comprehensive educational matters and the conflicting image with current Germany this results in the neo nazis might grow a bit faster/larger then in surrounding countries.
On November 13 2012 04:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:go ron paul etc because he cares for us
Couldn't really have put it better, politicians in this country try so very, very hard to look like they can connect with the populace and fail just as hard. If they put as much effort into actually giving a fuck who knows what they could achieve...
it's not only politicians who see fringe parties as fringe.
On November 13 2012 03:28 schaf wrote: I think in Germany the whole WW2 education backfired a bit. I agree it has to be done and it's good that we get it in school a lot. But when I was growing up (mid 20s now), it felt like being German is actually a bad thing. You get constantly confronted with the horros and of the past and their guilt. My parents were not a particular help in that regard either as they were heavily influenced by the hippie movement. So, if you grow up in that environment every identification with your nation is basically taken from you (might seem a bit extreme, but with me that was the case) and if you want to be a non-conformist or a rebel in school, you look for things that are 'forbidden'.
The NPD is a joke. But they actually have a good strategy. They do offers for young people in areas where there is nothing else, do free jurisdictional advice for unemployed people, do community festivals - and the people buy it. It works.
All in all, I wouldn't call all followers of the NPD as Neo-Nazis.
And there are countries who have a much more severe problem with this, for example Russia (yes!):
When I first visited Berlin several years ago, I stood under the Brandenburger Tor, with a plaque detailing the glorious events of March 1848, supposed to remind us of the best political traditions of Germany's ancestors, in contrast to 1870 and 1933. The plaque commemorated Germany's first liberal-democrats, how they rose up for their rights against an authoritarian regime, how they for a wrinkle in time seized the destiny of the nation and seemed to propel it to a hopeful future.
This is the kind of dogma, half naive, half ridiculous, which is being commonly propagated as "History" in Germany today, in classrooms, media and the popular imagination. The National Assembly which assembled in Frankfurt in 1848 eventually perished under the duress of its own national radicalism, and was forced to prostitute itself out to Frederick William IV, who wound up protecting his "democrats" from the people, but rightly refused to pick his crown up from the gutter. No one today will teach 1848 as an object lesson in the failures of historical German liberalism and constitutionalism, an episode whose multifaceted complexities, by the way, would have been more profoundly understood under the classical curricula of such authoritarian regimes as Bismarck's Prussia or Hitler's National Socialist Germany than by the historically tone-deaf people of today.
It is being trumpeted as a milestone event in the progress of Germany because national curriculum of self-censorship has practically eradicated all other political achievements from German memory. It has painted the sweep of Germany with a broad brush and, while subscribing to the Sonderweg theory that all of Germany's history must be read under the dim shadow of the Third Reich, occasionally pretends to promote Germany's Western legacy by citing and mis-citing such episodes as the March Revolution or Operation Walküre. This kind of post ex-facto ideological manipulation exists all over the place. The German Biedermeier is more properly the teleological Vormärz, the War Credits vote of the SPD in 1914 is now seen as an departure from political norms in German history, rather than its conformity to it.
This is all perhaps only ephemerally relevant to the issue at hand. Looking at the OP, however, and reading the report by the Friederich-Ebert-Stiftung, it's obvious that some things are being misrepresented. In the Spiegel-polls, the NDP does not command enough support to enter any State parliament in Germany apart from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where the polls show them at 6%. The Survey of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung has a list of questions so leading, that sometimes an answer which reveals a discerning historical understanding will be registered ideologically as “Rechtsextrem”
i.e.
Question 1:
Im nationalen Interesse ist unter bestimmten Umständen eine Diktatur die bessere Staatsform
Quite apart from the fact that this question betrays a lack of understanding as to what Dictatorship is, a classical scholar who admires Sulla might agree to this statement, and be labelled an extremist. The leading clause is the stipulation “unter bestimmten Umständen,” which vastly inflates the number of people who will be labelled inaccurately.
Question 2:
Ohne Judenvernichtung würde man Hitler heute als großen Staatsmann ansehen.
The leading aspect of this question is raised by its very hypothetical nature. You might as well ask if Hitler behaved as Mother Theresa, would he be seen as a saint today? The question is deliberately drawing on the great Hitler-biographer Joachim Fest's assertion in the introduction of his 1974 biography: Shall we call him great?
Fest asserted in his biograhpy that had Hitler died in 1938, he would have gone down in history as the greatest of German statesmen, surpassing Bismarck. These are debatable, but not trivial postulations. Yet under the consideration of the F-E-Stiftung, a lifelong bourgeois conservative like Fest would have been labelled an extremist.
The list goes on and on, deducing folly from folly. Finally all this “information” is reduced to a number ready for publication. After a long, exhaustive, methodological study, the final results conclude that the percentage of people holding extreme-right attitudes in Germany have grown from 6.6 percent to 15.8 percent. People are shocked. New resolutions are made from the left to accelerate the social and mental terraforming of the nation. We have to make German history even more mendacious and crude. We have to educate people better. We have to address socio-economic inequality.
Call me old-fashioned, but I have a better thermometer of measuring the presence of extremism in modern life. I go on the internet and see which people are going into a crazed frenzy calling everything else extreme.
This post was a highly enjoyable read, I recommend everyone read this before thinking too hard on the "evidence" presented in the OP.
disagree. the more 'thoughtful' the more pernicious when it comes to a defense of reactionary thinking. on a tactical level there may be an argument of turning to a more content based examination of the ideas and histories, rather than using sanctions and labels. however, at the same time the shadow of those ideas and histories is quite concrete no matter which approach.
for people who think it's okay, or even glorious, the examination has already been done and they are overruled. they should be condemned with pleasure, and that's all.
Shadows are not concrete. And there is always the most compelling argument of all for having the full picture of history. Sanctions and labels are simply a way to make the shadow you prefer as "concrete" as possible, with regard for the truth being a secondary concern if a concern at all.
Yes, thoughtful criticisms are more dangerous to an interpretation or opinion than those that are not, I don't see what your point is besides saying that what you think is so true and right that people should just turn their brains off and enjoy the sanctions and labels they're being fed.
On November 13 2012 05:02 ain wrote: 9% is far from alarming. It's far below international average supporters of nationalist parties.
No offence, but it hurts in my head a bit if I see that 9% thing. If you can afford to put the time in, it would be nice if you have a look for yourself how they came to these 9%.
First chauvinism gets used as an indicator for rightwing extremism, like really?
3% of the participants would support á dictatoric rightwing government. 5% of the foreign participants would do the same. Puts things in perspective and shows the big discrepancy to this ominous 9%.
4% of the participants show signs of social darwinistic thinking which could be attributed to both ends of the political spectrum. Again large discrepancy to the mentioned 9%.
On November 13 2012 05:02 ain wrote: 9% is far from alarming. It's far below international average supporters of nationalist parties.
No offence, but it hurts in my head a bit if I see that 9% thing. If you can afford to put the time in, it would be nice if you have a look for yourself how they came to these 9%.
First chauvinism gets used as an indicator for rightwing extremism, like really?
3% of the participants would support á dictatoric rightwing government. 5% of the foreign participants would do the same. Puts things in perspective and shows the big discrepancy to this ominous 9%.
4% of the participants show signs of social darwinistic thinking which could be attributed to both ends of the political spectrum. Again large discrepancy to the mentioned 9%.
On November 13 2012 04:36 lahara wrote: im a dedicated nazi and i have evry right to be (freedom of opinion, belief or ideology or whatever). the thing is how you define a nazi and what exact criteria must be fullfilled to qualify as a nazi. i consider myself a nazi but im not rasist or prejudiced. i go to an international school and have jewish friends. im a survey i would say im a nazi which i conside rmyself to be simply cause of the fact that a) it gives me a sense of belonging and b) im hoping to one day lead germany to former glory but this time with peaceful means and alot of flowerpower
not sorry for my bad engliush because fuck you
also an uprising is something different from a rise in the number of "nazis" in germany.
stupid attention seekr thread -.-
You're not a Nazi, you're a fascist/nationalist.
are you trying to restrict my freedom of belief?
No, he's attempting to understand why you are so infatuated with a word as opposed to the ideas that word might represent to you.
oh ok thats cool then. so how does it help him understand when he simply states i am not what i am convinced i am?
you must have alot of conflict not being a racist (as you claim) and your own political party going head hunting on immigrants illegally.
On November 13 2012 04:36 lahara wrote: im a dedicated nazi and i have evry right to be (freedom of opinion, belief or ideology or whatever). the thing is how you define a nazi and what exact criteria must be fullfilled to qualify as a nazi. i consider myself a nazi but im not rasist or prejudiced. i go to an international school and have jewish friends. im a survey i would say im a nazi which i conside rmyself to be simply cause of the fact that a) it gives me a sense of belonging and b) im hoping to one day lead germany to former glory but this time with peaceful means and alot of flowerpower
not sorry for my bad engliush because fuck you
also an uprising is something different from a rise in the number of "nazis" in germany.
stupid attention seekr thread -.-
You're not a Nazi, you're a fascist/nationalist.
are you trying to restrict my freedom of belief?
No, he's attempting to understand why you are so infatuated with a word as opposed to the ideas that word might represent to you.
oh ok thats cool then. so how does it help him understand when he simply states i am not what i am convinced i am?
What you're doing is the equivalent of German saying
"I'm a dedicated Chinese and I have every right to be (freedom etc). The thing is how you define and what exact criteria must be fullfilled to qualify as a Chinese. i consider myself a Chinese but I don't have any Chinese blood. i go to an international school and have Chinese friends. im a survey i would say im a Chinese which i conside rmyself to be simply cause of the fact that a) it gives me a sense of belonging and b) im hoping to one day lead Germany to its former glory but this time with peaceful means and alot of flowerpower"
i.e. : You're not being logical.
Nazism was the ideology of the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany.t is a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism.
Der Nationalsozialismus ist eine radikal antisemitische, rassistische, antikommunistische und antidemokratische Weltanschauung politische Bewegung.
On November 13 2012 05:18 Yuljan wrote: On a related note from the funny pictures thread:
I'm like 95% sure that is not in Germany, but rather in the UK (or somewhere else)
Totally different style of clothing, we hardly have any Indians (Sri Lankans), and that blonde chick looks British as well. And architecture is different, never saw that kind of grille in Germany.
On November 13 2012 04:36 lahara wrote: im a dedicated nazi and i have evry right to be (freedom of opinion, belief or ideology or whatever). the thing is how you define a nazi and what exact criteria must be fullfilled to qualify as a nazi. i consider myself a nazi but im not rasist or prejudiced. i go to an international school and have jewish friends. im a survey i would say im a nazi which i conside rmyself to be simply cause of the fact that a) it gives me a sense of belonging and b) im hoping to one day lead germany to former glory but this time with peaceful means and alot of flowerpower
not sorry for my bad engliush because fuck you
also an uprising is something different from a rise in the number of "nazis" in germany.
stupid attention seekr thread -.-
You're not a Nazi, you're a fascist/nationalist.
are you trying to restrict my freedom of belief?
No, he's attempting to understand why you are so infatuated with a word as opposed to the ideas that word might represent to you.
oh ok thats cool then. so how does it help him understand when he simply states i am not what i am convinced i am?
you must have alot of conflict not being a racist (as you claim) and your own political party going head hunting on immigrants illegally.
nononono look: im not a member of the NPD i dont sympathize with the NPD. im simply a nazi. its just like saying ure only a muslim if you blow up skyscrapers. its simply false. the huge majority of muslims are not extremist and are decent people. same with nazis just that the ratio of extremist nazis to non extremist nazis is higher than in the given example of muslims. during the third reich a majority of germans was "nazi" but not all of these considering themselves nazis were extremists
On November 13 2012 04:36 lahara wrote: im a dedicated nazi and i have evry right to be (freedom of opinion, belief or ideology or whatever). the thing is how you define a nazi and what exact criteria must be fullfilled to qualify as a nazi. i consider myself a nazi but im not rasist or prejudiced. i go to an international school and have jewish friends. im a survey i would say im a nazi which i conside rmyself to be simply cause of the fact that a) it gives me a sense of belonging and b) im hoping to one day lead germany to former glory but this time with peaceful means and alot of flowerpower
not sorry for my bad engliush because fuck you
also an uprising is something different from a rise in the number of "nazis" in germany.
stupid attention seekr thread -.-
You're not a Nazi, you're a fascist/nationalist.
are you trying to restrict my freedom of belief?
No, he's attempting to understand why you are so infatuated with a word as opposed to the ideas that word might represent to you.
oh ok thats cool then. so how does it help him understand when he simply states i am not what i am convinced i am?
you must have alot of conflict not being a racist (as you claim) and your own political party going head hunting on immigrants illegally.
It's fine.. I'm actually a cow (during daytime, at night i wear a cape and fight crime). Telling me otherwise would be you trying to restrict my freedom of belief.
On November 13 2012 05:18 Yuljan wrote: On a related note from the funny pictures thread:
I'm like 95% sure that is not in Germany, but rather in the UK (or somewhere else)
Totally different style of clothing, we hardly have any Indians (Sri Lankans), and that blonde chick looks British as well. And architecture is different, never saw that kind of grille in Germany.
Its just a funny picture and its actually pretty accurate for my school. Until 11th Grade we were exactly 3 Germans out of 30 students.
On November 13 2012 04:36 lahara wrote: im a dedicated nazi and i have evry right to be (freedom of opinion, belief or ideology or whatever). the thing is how you define a nazi and what exact criteria must be fullfilled to qualify as a nazi. i consider myself a nazi but im not rasist or prejudiced. i go to an international school and have jewish friends. im a survey i would say im a nazi which i conside rmyself to be simply cause of the fact that a) it gives me a sense of belonging and b) im hoping to one day lead germany to former glory but this time with peaceful means and alot of flowerpower
not sorry for my bad engliush because fuck you
also an uprising is something different from a rise in the number of "nazis" in germany.
stupid attention seekr thread -.-
You're not a Nazi, you're a fascist/nationalist.
are you trying to restrict my freedom of belief?
No, he's attempting to understand why you are so infatuated with a word as opposed to the ideas that word might represent to you.
oh ok thats cool then. so how does it help him understand when he simply states i am not what i am convinced i am?
you must have alot of conflict not being a racist (as you claim) and your own political party going head hunting on immigrants illegally.
It's fine.. I'm actually a cow (during daytime, at night i wear a cape and fight crime). Telling me otherwise would be you trying to restrict my freedom of belief.
On November 13 2012 05:30 Velr wrote: it's related to the total bullshit your spewing.
are you trying to restrict my freedom of speech?
no he is trying to restrict your idiocy
no need to be insulting man, answers can be given ina civilised manner. whenever i browse TL i get the impression a large part of its community consists of very angry people
On November 13 2012 05:30 Velr wrote: it's related to the total bullshit your spewing.
are you trying to restrict my freedom of speech?
I gladly would if I could.
yes thats how it starts... whats next? all tlers with less than 1000 posts have to wear some kind of star as their profile pic and can only browse the blog section????
On November 13 2012 05:30 Velr wrote: it's related to the total bullshit your spewing.
are you trying to restrict my freedom of speech?
no he is trying to restrict your idiocy
no need to be insulting man, answers can be given ina civilised manner. whenever i browse TL i get the impression a large part of its community consists of very angry people
it's just put bluntly, the argument is alread going on for pages, sugar coating the points which were made seems to be rather ineffective.
On November 13 2012 05:30 Velr wrote: it's related to the total bullshit your spewing.
are you trying to restrict my freedom of speech?
I gladly would if I could.
yes thats how it starts... whats next? all tlers with less than 1000 posts have to wear some kind of star as their profile pic and can only browse the blog section????
fascists everywhere
I like your trolling. Are you really a german btw?
On a serious note, I honestly don't think this will be a serious issue. As everyone else has already mentioned, this sort of pattern is normal with a crippling economy.
Greece, on the other hand, may be having a slight issue with this.
On November 13 2012 05:30 Velr wrote: it's related to the total bullshit your spewing.
are you trying to restrict my freedom of speech?
no he is trying to restrict your idiocy
no need to be insulting man, answers can be given ina civilised manner. whenever i browse TL i get the impression a large part of its community consists of very angry people
it's just put bluntly, the argument is alread going on for pages, sugar coating the points which were made seems to be rather ineffective.
still a more civil atmosphere would not hurt... its cussing it starts with. whats next pornographic images as profile icons?
On November 13 2012 05:30 Velr wrote: it's related to the total bullshit your spewing.
are you trying to restrict my freedom of speech?
I gladly would if I could.
yes thats how it starts... whats next? all tlers with less than 1000 posts have to wear some kind of star as their profile pic and can only browse the blog section????
fascists everywhere
I like your trolling. Are you really a german btw?
trolling? im actually dead srious believe it or not.its just you being unable to understand something that is different and new to you. and yes i am german
On November 13 2012 05:30 Velr wrote: it's related to the total bullshit your spewing.
are you trying to restrict my freedom of speech?
no he is trying to restrict your idiocy
no need to be insulting man, answers can be given ina civilised manner. whenever i browse TL i get the impression a large part of its community consists of very angry people
it's just put bluntly, the argument is alread going on for pages, sugar coating the points which were made seems to be rather ineffective.
still a more civil atmosphere would not hurt... its cussing it starts with. whats next pornographic images as profile icons?
neither cussing nor porn has anything to do with the questions at hand. Utterly irrelevant for the discussion
On November 13 2012 05:30 Velr wrote: it's related to the total bullshit your spewing.
are you trying to restrict my freedom of speech?
no he is trying to restrict your idiocy
no need to be insulting man, answers can be given ina civilised manner. whenever i browse TL i get the impression a large part of its community consists of very angry people
it's just put bluntly, the argument is alread going on for pages, sugar coating the points which were made seems to be rather ineffective.
still a more civil atmosphere would not hurt... its cussing it starts with. whats next pornographic images as profile icons?
neither cussing nor porn has anything to do with the questions at hand. Utterly irrelevant for the discussion
then again the question at hand is utterly unimportant for the actuall OP. i was just trying to fit in :/
On November 13 2012 05:38 xVoiid wrote: On a serious note, I honestly don't think this will be a serious issue. As everyone else has already mentioned, this sort of pattern is normal with a crippling economy.
I think that's how Hitler came to power actually. People get desperate in not so bright times. ^^
On November 13 2012 05:30 Velr wrote: it's related to the total bullshit your spewing.
are you trying to restrict my freedom of speech?
I gladly would if I could.
yes thats how it starts... whats next? all tlers with less than 1000 posts have to wear some kind of star as their profile pic and can only browse the blog section????
fascists everywhere
I like your trolling. Are you really a german btw?
trolling? im actually dead srious believe it or not.its just you being unable to understand something that is different and new to you. and yes i am german
New to me? I am pretty much center right myself but flower power nazi without prejudice? please...
i think calling 9% of persons "extremely right-winged" is probably a lit far fetched. Although its true that many people in our country in the recent years started to getting more and more politically extreme, although in both directions.
One reason for that is probably the very heated EU situation. Because of all the new EU-reglementations on government spending and deficits, which are more or less connected to our government, there's really alot of hate towards Angela Merkel and our political represantatives in general, and because of newspapers not getting tired to print all the "anti-germany"- pictures on news sites over and over again thats also increasing the anger here towards all the other EU-countries.
So the in my opinion poorly handled eu crysis may be one large factor for the right/left-wing tendencies that are happening in every country here at the moment.
Another reason especially for germany may be the financial and educational situation in most eastern-states, although it's really not that bad as the opening post seems to suggest. As someone mentioned before only one of our states has representatives of the right-wing party (NPD) in their parliament, and they're barely above the 5% minimum-vote percentage.
The third reason is probably that extreme probably never will vanish, because some people just adopt them because they desperately want to get some kind of identity or meaning in their lifes. (like the weird guy above who claims to be a nazi)
trolling? im actually dead srious believe it or not.its just you being unable to understand something that is different and new to you. and yes i am german
and i'm really interested in what the hell is going on with you. You can't really expect someone to reply to your posts seriously. You call yourself a nazi which is in itself idiotic enough and then you even say you don't share the core opinions of that ideology in the same sentence, which is totally absurd.
On November 13 2012 05:30 Velr wrote: it's related to the total bullshit your spewing.
are you trying to restrict my freedom of speech?
I gladly would if I could.
yes thats how it starts... whats next? all tlers with less than 1000 posts have to wear some kind of star as their profile pic and can only browse the blog section????
fascists everywhere
I like your trolling. Are you really a german btw?
trolling? im actually dead srious believe it or not.its just you being unable to understand something that is different and new to you. and yes i am german
New to me? I am pretty much center right myself but flower power nazi without prejudice? please...
yes i apologize for the flower power bit. i have stated in an earlier post it was stupid jibberrish. but i do consider myself a nazi and i am not racist towards anybody
While I realize you stated in the OP that this NPD party holds similar values to the old Nazi party, it would be very helpful if you could outline the crucial points in the OP of the particular similarities. As it stands, I have no idea why you are linking the two. Do you associate the two because the NPD might take a hardline against immigration, or are they actively advocating Aryan supremacy..?
trolling? im actually dead srious believe it or not.its just you being unable to understand something that is different and new to you. and yes i am german
and i'm really interested in what the hell is going on with you. You can't really expect someone to reply to your posts seriously. You call yourself a nazi which is in itself idiotic enough and then you even say you don't share the core opinions of that ideology in the same sentence, which is totally absurd.
its not idiotic. its honest and takes a bit of courage too in current times. and what is so hard to believe about someone thinking he is something without being able to explain exactly why and maybe not even knowing it himself.. isnt life a search for ones self for all of us to some extent. im just halfway done wiht this journey apparently
On November 13 2012 00:36 BluePanther wrote: For all the comments about how America is too far right politically, Europe always has this problem and we never really do.
And what would you consider the KKK and the Black Panther Party?
On November 13 2012 00:36 BluePanther wrote: For all the comments about how America is too far right politically, Europe always has this problem and we never really do.
And what would you consider the KKK and the Black Panther Party?
and to be fair npd is more like the tea party in their political views. We have no real equivalent to the kkk.
On November 13 2012 00:55 ppshchik wrote: Please dont address skinheads as Nazis, it is an insult to true Nazis. Comparing skinheads to Nazis is like comparing hippies to Communists. They are wannabes not the real deal.
Quote of the day: "X is an insult to true Nazis." LOL. How dare you insult true nazi's?!?!
trolling? im actually dead srious believe it or not.its just you being unable to understand something that is different and new to you. and yes i am german
and i'm really interested in what the hell is going on with you. You can't really expect someone to reply to your posts seriously. You call yourself a nazi which is in itself idiotic enough and then you even say you don't share the core opinions of that ideology in the same sentence, which is totally absurd.
its not idiotic. its honest and takes a bit of courage too in current times. and what is so hard to believe about someone thinking he is something without being able to explain exactly why and maybe not even knowing it himself.. isnt life a search for ones self for all of us to some extent. im just halfway done wiht this journey apparently
Then I would simply suggest you to actually put the time in to evaluate and examinate your core believes. Just take time and read "Mein Kampf". You will realize that racism in NS ideology is inherent. As you describe yourself as non racist this should lead to looking for something different.
While I realize you stated in the OP that this NPD party holds similar values to the old Nazi party, it would be very helpful if you could outline the crucial points in the OP of the particular similarities. As it stands, I have no idea why you are linking the two. Do you associate the two because the NPD might take a hardline against immigration, or are they actively advocating Aryan supremacy..?
Well officially they don't share that much at all. On paper the NPD is just a pretty much right-wing party. They want less/no immigration, traditional family values... etc. In fact they probably share a lot of the stuff that many people in the usa would just call conservative. (and thats no america bashing btw, its just that germany is generally way more on the left-wing spectrum of the political scale)
But unofficially many people of the party are also part of the "nazi-scene" , attending extremely right-wing meetings, celebrating "nazi-culture" and are connected to nazi-demonstrations and assaults on immigrants and similar stuff. We recently had a big debate about murder cases in germany connected to the nazi scene, and many of those people who took part in that were also connected to the NPD aswell.
trolling? im actually dead srious believe it or not.its just you being unable to understand something that is different and new to you. and yes i am german
and i'm really interested in what the hell is going on with you. You can't really expect someone to reply to your posts seriously. You call yourself a nazi which is in itself idiotic enough and then you even say you don't share the core opinions of that ideology in the same sentence, which is totally absurd.
its not idiotic. its honest and takes a bit of courage too in current times. and what is so hard to believe about someone thinking he is something without being able to explain exactly why and maybe not even knowing it himself.. isnt life a search for ones self for all of us to some extent. im just halfway done wiht this journey apparently
Then I would simply suggest you to actually put the time in to evaluate and examinate your core believes. Just take time and read "Mein Kampf". You will realize that racism in NS ideology is inherent. As you describe yourself as non racist this should lead to looking for something different.
just like any ideology its not comepltely linear. just like the koran mein kampf is open to interprertation. also i will not read that filth for it is racist and extremist which is horrible in my opinion. i already stated why i like to consider myself a nazi which is that it gives me a sense of belonging. dont really see the problem in that. there are many "christians" or members of the church who dont believe in god but are still members of the church for reasons not associated witht the core belief of the institution.
trolling? im actually dead srious believe it or not.its just you being unable to understand something that is different and new to you. and yes i am german
and i'm really interested in what the hell is going on with you. You can't really expect someone to reply to your posts seriously. You call yourself a nazi which is in itself idiotic enough and then you even say you don't share the core opinions of that ideology in the same sentence, which is totally absurd.
its not idiotic. its honest and takes a bit of courage too in current times. and what is so hard to believe about someone thinking he is something without being able to explain exactly why and maybe not even knowing it himself.. isnt life a search for ones self for all of us to some extent. im just halfway done wiht this journey apparently
Then I would simply suggest you to actually put the time in to evaluate and examinate your core believes. Just take time and read "Mein Kampf". You will realize that racism in NS ideology is inherent. As you describe yourself as non racist this should lead to looking for something different.
just like any ideology its not comepltely linear. just like the koran mein kampf is open to interprertation. also i will not read that filth for it is racist and extremist which is horrible in my opinion. i already stated why i like to consider myself a nazi which is that it gives me a sense of belonging. dont really see the problem in that. there are many "christians" or members of the church who dont believe in god but are still members of the church for reasons not associated witht the core belief of the institution.
unfortunately for you, your political affiliation was responsible for one of the most horrific act and continues to do horrible things in small scale. It is naive for you to think that people would accept your ideology especially when you guys didnt even bother to change the friggin name Nazi. That name alone is insulting enough on human race in 21st century.
you can argue about crusade and Christians but since then they have moved on from hatred towards peace and acceptance. Exactly opposite of your views
While I realize you stated in the OP that this NPD party holds similar values to the old Nazi party, it would be very helpful if you could outline the crucial points in the OP of the particular similarities. As it stands, I have no idea why you are linking the two. Do you associate the two because the NPD might take a hardline against immigration, or are they actively advocating Aryan supremacy..?
Well officially they don't share that much at all. On paper the NPD is just a pretty much right-wing party. They want less/no immigration, traditional family values... etc. In fact they probably share a lot of the stuff that many people in the usa would just call conservative. (and thats no america bashing btw, its just that germany is generally way more on the left-wing spectrum of the political scale)
But unofficially many people of the party are also part of the "nazi-scene" , attending extremely right-wing meetings, celebrating "nazi-culture" and are connected to nazi-demonstrations and assaults on immigrants and similar stuff. We recently had a big debate about murder cases in germany connected to the nazi scene, and many of those people who took part in that were also connected to the NPD aswell.
In their official platform, on economic policy they definitely stand on what Americans would consider the left, as their platform calls for minimum-wage laws, anti-globalism (Volkswirtschaft), environmental protection, tax relief for the lower- and middle-classes at the expense of the wealthy and non-intervention abroad.
The thing that distinguishes them is their hostility to immigration, their promotion of Nationalist values, and the Volksgemeinschaft.
Personally I cannot do any personality profiling of their actual members, since I've never met anyone in Germany who'd admitted to being a NDP-voter. All the young people out there in the south are Greens or Pirates.
trolling? im actually dead srious believe it or not.its just you being unable to understand something that is different and new to you. and yes i am german
and i'm really interested in what the hell is going on with you. You can't really expect someone to reply to your posts seriously. You call yourself a nazi which is in itself idiotic enough and then you even say you don't share the core opinions of that ideology in the same sentence, which is totally absurd.
its not idiotic. its honest and takes a bit of courage too in current times. and what is so hard to believe about someone thinking he is something without being able to explain exactly why and maybe not even knowing it himself.. isnt life a search for ones self for all of us to some extent. im just halfway done wiht this journey apparently
Then I would simply suggest you to actually put the time in to evaluate and examinate your core believes. Just take time and read "Mein Kampf". You will realize that racism in NS ideology is inherent. As you describe yourself as non racist this should lead to looking for something different.
just like any ideology its not comepltely linear. just like the koran mein kampf is open to interprertation. also i will not read that filth for it is racist and extremist which is horrible in my opinion. i already stated why i like to consider myself a nazi which is that it gives me a sense of belonging. dont really see the problem in that. there are many "christians" or members of the church who dont believe in god but are still members of the church for reasons not associated witht the core belief of the institution.
unfortunately for you, your political affiliation was responsible for one of the most horrific act and continues to do horrible things in small scale. It is naive for you to think that people would accept your ideology especially when you guys didnt even bother to change the friggin name Nazi. That name alone is insulting enough on human race in 21st century.
you can argue about crusade and Christians but since then they have moved on from hatred towards peace and acceptance. Exactly opposite of your views
DONT forget child abuse... and im used to people getting caught up on me being a nazi. but oh well in a world full of prejudice and ideological prosecution it does get tough at times
after getting to know somebody who was part of the right movement for some time i have to say that the way we see this development from the outside is wrong.
while being even more retarded, the npd is not the nsdap, meaning they dont proclaim to kill all jews and start a war but represent themselves as a right winged not anti-democratic party. That's enough for many to make them electable.
What makes them pick up members is that they essentially try to say is that they think that Germans should have better jobs than non Germans in Germany, a thought that while racist and small-minded, draws lots of attention by the poor and uneducated who begrudge people who have more and are looking for a scapegoat. Which is exactly why they are stronger in the east.
In the same way you could ask why the left extreme party gets any votes, being the successors of the sed. Both parties get votes from those who lack education, so focusing this late in school wont help at all. Changing the school system into something more motivating or programs to increase the job chances of the guys who skipped school is probably the way to go.
trolling? im actually dead srious believe it or not.its just you being unable to understand something that is different and new to you. and yes i am german
and i'm really interested in what the hell is going on with you. You can't really expect someone to reply to your posts seriously. You call yourself a nazi which is in itself idiotic enough and then you even say you don't share the core opinions of that ideology in the same sentence, which is totally absurd.
its not idiotic. its honest and takes a bit of courage too in current times. and what is so hard to believe about someone thinking he is something without being able to explain exactly why and maybe not even knowing it himself.. isnt life a search for ones self for all of us to some extent. im just halfway done wiht this journey apparently
Then I would simply suggest you to actually put the time in to evaluate and examinate your core believes. Just take time and read "Mein Kampf". You will realize that racism in NS ideology is inherent. As you describe yourself as non racist this should lead to looking for something different.
just like any ideology its not comepltely linear. just like the koran mein kampf is open to interprertation. also i will not read that filth for it is racist and extremist which is horrible in my opinion. i already stated why i like to consider myself a nazi which is that it gives me a sense of belonging. dont really see the problem in that. there are many "christians" or members of the church who dont believe in god but are still members of the church for reasons not associated witht the core belief of the institution.
unfortunately for you, your political affiliation was responsible for one of the most horrific act and continues to do horrible things in small scale. It is naive for you to think that people would accept your ideology especially when you guys didnt even bother to change the friggin name Nazi. That name alone is insulting enough on human race in 21st century.
you can argue about crusade and Christians but since then they have moved on from hatred towards peace and acceptance. Exactly opposite of your views
DONT forget child abuse... and im used to people getting caught up on me being a nazi. but oh well in a world full of prejudice and ideological prosecution it does get tough at times
your comparison is legit, the church committed genocides and burnings of minorities too. On the other hand the child abuses while being something that is probably the result of the celibacy, are not something the church as an institution encourages but pretty much the deeds of individual persons. The church has moral basics that to some extend are positive and has tried in the last few hundred years to do some things to make up for the crap they did. I fail to see how the same can be said for nazis, especially since nazi is a word that was created exclusively to describe followers of Hitler, whom you seem to condemn. Nazi does not equal being a nationalist and a socialist at the same time, but being a follower of Hitlers agenda.
On November 13 2012 04:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:go ron paul etc because he cares for us
Couldn't really have put it better, politicians in this country try so very, very hard to look like they can connect with the populace and fail just as hard. If they put as much effort into actually giving a fuck who knows what they could achieve...
it's not only politicians who see fringe parties as fringe.
On November 13 2012 04:49 farvacola wrote:
On November 13 2012 04:41 MoltkeWarding wrote:
On November 13 2012 03:28 schaf wrote: I think in Germany the whole WW2 education backfired a bit. I agree it has to be done and it's good that we get it in school a lot. But when I was growing up (mid 20s now), it felt like being German is actually a bad thing. You get constantly confronted with the horros and of the past and their guilt. My parents were not a particular help in that regard either as they were heavily influenced by the hippie movement. So, if you grow up in that environment every identification with your nation is basically taken from you (might seem a bit extreme, but with me that was the case) and if you want to be a non-conformist or a rebel in school, you look for things that are 'forbidden'.
The NPD is a joke. But they actually have a good strategy. They do offers for young people in areas where there is nothing else, do free jurisdictional advice for unemployed people, do community festivals - and the people buy it. It works.
All in all, I wouldn't call all followers of the NPD as Neo-Nazis.
And there are countries who have a much more severe problem with this, for example Russia (yes!):
When I first visited Berlin several years ago, I stood under the Brandenburger Tor, with a plaque detailing the glorious events of March 1848, supposed to remind us of the best political traditions of Germany's ancestors, in contrast to 1870 and 1933. The plaque commemorated Germany's first liberal-democrats, how they rose up for their rights against an authoritarian regime, how they for a wrinkle in time seized the destiny of the nation and seemed to propel it to a hopeful future.
This is the kind of dogma, half naive, half ridiculous, which is being commonly propagated as "History" in Germany today, in classrooms, media and the popular imagination. The National Assembly which assembled in Frankfurt in 1848 eventually perished under the duress of its own national radicalism, and was forced to prostitute itself out to Frederick William IV, who wound up protecting his "democrats" from the people, but rightly refused to pick his crown up from the gutter. No one today will teach 1848 as an object lesson in the failures of historical German liberalism and constitutionalism, an episode whose multifaceted complexities, by the way, would have been more profoundly understood under the classical curricula of such authoritarian regimes as Bismarck's Prussia or Hitler's National Socialist Germany than by the historically tone-deaf people of today.
It is being trumpeted as a milestone event in the progress of Germany because national curriculum of self-censorship has practically eradicated all other political achievements from German memory. It has painted the sweep of Germany with a broad brush and, while subscribing to the Sonderweg theory that all of Germany's history must be read under the dim shadow of the Third Reich, occasionally pretends to promote Germany's Western legacy by citing and mis-citing such episodes as the March Revolution or Operation Walküre. This kind of post ex-facto ideological manipulation exists all over the place. The German Biedermeier is more properly the teleological Vormärz, the War Credits vote of the SPD in 1914 is now seen as an departure from political norms in German history, rather than its conformity to it.
This is all perhaps only ephemerally relevant to the issue at hand. Looking at the OP, however, and reading the report by the Friederich-Ebert-Stiftung, it's obvious that some things are being misrepresented. In the Spiegel-polls, the NDP does not command enough support to enter any State parliament in Germany apart from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where the polls show them at 6%. The Survey of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung has a list of questions so leading, that sometimes an answer which reveals a discerning historical understanding will be registered ideologically as “Rechtsextrem”
i.e.
Question 1:
Im nationalen Interesse ist unter bestimmten Umständen eine Diktatur die bessere Staatsform
Quite apart from the fact that this question betrays a lack of understanding as to what Dictatorship is, a classical scholar who admires Sulla might agree to this statement, and be labelled an extremist. The leading clause is the stipulation “unter bestimmten Umständen,” which vastly inflates the number of people who will be labelled inaccurately.
Question 2:
Ohne Judenvernichtung würde man Hitler heute als großen Staatsmann ansehen.
The leading aspect of this question is raised by its very hypothetical nature. You might as well ask if Hitler behaved as Mother Theresa, would he be seen as a saint today? The question is deliberately drawing on the great Hitler-biographer Joachim Fest's assertion in the introduction of his 1974 biography: Shall we call him great?
Fest asserted in his biograhpy that had Hitler died in 1938, he would have gone down in history as the greatest of German statesmen, surpassing Bismarck. These are debatable, but not trivial postulations. Yet under the consideration of the F-E-Stiftung, a lifelong bourgeois conservative like Fest would have been labelled an extremist.
The list goes on and on, deducing folly from folly. Finally all this “information” is reduced to a number ready for publication. After a long, exhaustive, methodological study, the final results conclude that the percentage of people holding extreme-right attitudes in Germany have grown from 6.6 percent to 15.8 percent. People are shocked. New resolutions are made from the left to accelerate the social and mental terraforming of the nation. We have to make German history even more mendacious and crude. We have to educate people better. We have to address socio-economic inequality.
Call me old-fashioned, but I have a better thermometer of measuring the presence of extremism in modern life. I go on the internet and see which people are going into a crazed frenzy calling everything else extreme.
This post was a highly enjoyable read, I recommend everyone read this before thinking too hard on the "evidence" presented in the OP.
disagree. the more 'thoughtful' the more pernicious when it comes to a defense of reactionary thinking. on a tactical level there may be an argument of turning to a more content based examination of the ideas and histories, rather than using sanctions and labels. however, at the same time the shadow of those ideas and histories is quite concrete no matter which approach.
for people who think it's okay, or even glorious, the examination has already been done and they are overruled. they should be condemned with pleasure, and that's all.
Shadows are not concrete. And there is always the most compelling argument of all for having the full picture of history. Sanctions and labels are simply a way to make the shadow you prefer as "concrete" as possible, with regard for the truth being a secondary concern if a concern at all.
Yes, thoughtful criticisms are more dangerous to an interpretation or opinion than those that are not, I don't see what your point is besides saying that what you think is so true and right that people should just turn their brains off and enjoy the sanctions and labels they're being fed.
shadows is the word because it was used in a scary scary sense to trivialize concrete history. the shadow of the third reich, for instance, is quite concrete.
there is no shortage of factual determination of the issue. there is however a distinct need for moral sanctions of the sort that prevents the moral stance against what nazis did and stood for from becoming arguable, relativizable, etc.
The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
I took the liberty of actually reading the study and especially the questions asked. Honestly there is a difference between saying that there 9.7 % are Nazis or saying that 9.7 % of people answered: "National sozialism wasn´t exclusively bad" (The exact Question responsible for that value;page 37).
Answering yes to : "In times of Crisis a dictator is more efficient." would make you an Quote: Abetter of a right wing dictatorship.
It shows a certain way of thinking but it´s not the same.
That study would have been devastating in a more nationalistic countries like the US or the UK.
In their official platform, on economic policy they definitely stand on what Americans would consider the left, as their platform calls for minimum-wage laws, anti-globalism (Volkswirtschaft), environmental protection, tax relief for the lower- and middle-classes at the expense of the wealthy and non-intervention abroad.
The thing that distinguishes them is their hostility to immigration, their promotion of Nationalist values, and the Volksgemeinschaft.
You're right, from an economical standpoint they're very socialistic, which is also a similarity they share with the nazi-regime, that combined with their cultural conservatism makes them actually dangerously attractive for people , who may lack the education to see that the whole party is more or less a disguise and plattform to spread their ideas.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
Past history of conflicts? You should try a little closer to home if you want a real history of conflicts.
Edit: And before accepting the unification the allies wanted a clear declaration that Germany stays in the nato and doesnt become a demilitarized neutral state. From wiki: In December 1989, the administration of President George H. W. Bush made a united Germany's continued NATO membership a requirement for supporting reunification. Kohl agreed, although less than 20% of West Germans supported remaining within NATO
The french far-right political party is also gaining support, they had 20% of votes last presidential election. TWENTY. so yeah. I blame the fact that immigrants nowadays refuse to assimilate and accept the culture of the country they come into. Best example is those sallafists. Not to mention that European Union's open borders means that the people in poorer European countries will come into the countries that are wealthier, like the Romanichels in France.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
thats not very smart tbh, World War I was caused by an attack on Germany's ally that forced Germany to declare war on a country who was allied to UK and France. WW2 was caused because of the state the allies left germany in after the Versailles Treaty which basically made Germany into a third world country, the discontentment lead to the Nazi party gaining power, Hitler gave Germany their strength back. Imagine the USA losing a war and become one of the weakest countries in the world, you'd be pretty pissed, no?
The wars had NOTHING to do with the fact they were Germans, and at the rate it's going, the countries more likely to start World War 3 are Iran, Israel and the US
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
yeah our 100000 man army is going to pwn the world once more after we bankrupted the EU.
Wake up dude germans only go to war when an austrian is leading us.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
I really hope you're just a bad troll. Some things to consider: 1) our NATO allies (e.g. US, Canada) are constantly pushing us to increase our military budget so that our military can do more to help in military conflicts (btw, none of which were initiated by Germany in the last 67 years, nor was the population in favor of any of these wars - our allies called for help, and we reluctantly did) 2) the forced demilitarisation after WW1 and hence loss in sovereignty arguably led to an increase in nationalism 3) the number of right wing sympathizers is a lot lower than in our neighboring countries, e.g Austria, France, Netherlands, Denmark So I really hope that you are just a bad troll, because what you said is very insulting and -frankly- stupid.
On November 13 2012 00:55 ppshchik wrote: Please dont address skinheads as Nazis, it is an insult to true Nazis. Comparing skinheads to Nazis is like comparing hippies to Communists. They are wannabes not the real deal.
Quote of the day: "X is an insult to true Nazis." LOL. How dare you insult true nazi's?!?!
Easy there, he just said "real" nazis would feel insulted when compared to them, why insist viewing his post in the worst possible way?
To put things in a perspective: He quotes a left-wing magazine that refers to a left-wing socialist party's think tank. And that his username referes to a left wing writer does the rest, right? Don't let him fool you. In times of economic troubles, people always tend to vote for extermists (see Greece). But there certainly is no relation toward a long-term trend or as he might try to imply to a revival or nazi ideologies.
On November 13 2012 00:12 kafkaesque wrote: Hey guys,
given Germany's history, one should think that even the most idiotic and uneducated Germans recognize Hitler's regime for what it was. However, as long as I've been able to read news, Neonazis are gaining in numbers and political strength.
A recent study by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, a foundation to promote democracy, has shown that an alarming number of Germans, to be precise: 9%, embrace far right political views an sympathize with the Nazi-Party or its (rather pathetic and ineffectual) reincarnation: NPD.
In East Germany, the structurally weaker ex-GDR, the numbers are downright terrifying: During the past two years, the number of far right-wings has been more than doubled, from 6.6 to more than 15%. Which makes these numbers more alarming is that those who have been indoctrinated by the original Nazis are virtually extinct, so we're speaking of an entirely new generation of Nazis.
Surely these Neo-Nazis are misled by a cunning political entity?
Far from it. The NPD is a joke, it's not even worth mentioning. Although they have representation in 2/16 state parliaments, with no representation in the federal government, it is extremely hard to take them seriously. Their public appearances are clumsy, borderline comical, and attest a chaotic, haphazard political program without clear direction.
Why is this problematic?
If you grow up in Germany, you will be thoroughly educated about the Nazi Party. The history of the Third Reich is mandatory part of your historical education and secondary schools frequently have week-long projects to further awareness of the horrors of Hitler's Germany. Chances are, you will at one point visit one of the concentration camps of Buchenwald or Auschwitz and schools go through great lenghts to get jewish orators who have witnessed Nazi Germany first hand. History programs on TV eat up that chapter as well and the Federal Agency for Civic Education offers a plethora of different magazines for free so one can educate oneself even further.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
How do other Germans deal with these issues?
German constitution gives anyone including the Nazis the right for public assembly, NPD-member ofttimes gather in large numbers to March for their misguided cause and try to recruit members.
Obviously, the rest of Germany isn't oblivious to those assemblies and since the right-wing-extremists are vastly outnumbered, usually peaceful protest prevents them from marching.
Personal opinion
To be perfectly clear, I don't suggest that in 10 years time we'll go about killing Jews and invading Poland again, I just want to express my anger and sadness that despite comprehensive educational matters and in times of peace of properity, there grows a new generation of antisemetic, antiislamic and antidemocratic young people who sympathise with the demonic Nazi regime.
Points of discussion
- German / Nazi related jokes - Speculation of sources (educational, economic, political etc.) - Right-wing extremists in your own country - etc.
On November 13 2012 06:17 PlaGuE_R wrote: The french far-right political party is also gaining support, they had 20% of votes last presidential election. TWENTY. so yeah. I blame the fact that immigrants nowadays refuse to assimilate and accept the culture of the country they come into. Best example is those sallafists. Not to mention that European Union's open borders means that the people in poorer European countries will come into the countries that are wealthier, like the Romanichels in France.
No offense, but why should they? French people themselves are notorious for failing to assimilate in foreign countries. Europe as a whole is a racist mess.
Although i share your opinion that our military budget is way too high, don't be afraid, tanks won't rolling be in soon, lol. I don't know what kind of sensationalist news site you are visiting, but germany is probably not going to start any war soon.
And anyway most of our military budget (60%) is spent on staff cost and administration, and also don't forget germany is participating in UNO missions.
So although i agree on the point that we should cut our spending, the reason is definately not to stop future imperial endeavours.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
If you didn´t know, combine the population or area of these countries and Germany is bigger.
For obvious reasons you forgot poland (larger per capita), sweden((larger per capita) Poland (larger per capita) and France (larger per capita). Compared to the position of influence Germany commands in the world the military is Laughable.
That is, and never was the power of Germany it was industry and education.
On November 13 2012 06:19 BBS wrote: To put things in a perspective: He quotes a left-wing magazine that refers to a left-wing socialist party's think tank. And that his username referes to a left wing writer does the rest, right? Don't let him fool you. In times of economic troubles, people always tend to vote for extermists (see Greece). But there certainly is no relation toward a long-term trend or as he might try to imply to a revival or nazi ideologies.
On November 13 2012 00:12 kafkaesque wrote: Hey guys,
given Germany's history, one should think that even the most idiotic and uneducated Germans recognize Hitler's regime for what it was. However, as long as I've been able to read news, Neonazis are gaining in numbers and political strength.
A recent study by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, a foundation to promote democracy, has shown that an alarming number of Germans, to be precise: 9%, embrace far right political views an sympathize with the Nazi-Party or its (rather pathetic and ineffectual) reincarnation: NPD.
In East Germany, the structurally weaker ex-GDR, the numbers are downright terrifying: During the past two years, the number of far right-wings has been more than doubled, from 6.6 to more than 15%. Which makes these numbers more alarming is that those who have been indoctrinated by the original Nazis are virtually extinct, so we're speaking of an entirely new generation of Nazis.
Surely these Neo-Nazis are misled by a cunning political entity?
Far from it. The NPD is a joke, it's not even worth mentioning. Although they have representation in 2/16 state parliaments, with no representation in the federal government, it is extremely hard to take them seriously. Their public appearances are clumsy, borderline comical, and attest a chaotic, haphazard political program without clear direction.
Why is this problematic?
If you grow up in Germany, you will be thoroughly educated about the Nazi Party. The history of the Third Reich is mandatory part of your historical education and secondary schools frequently have week-long projects to further awareness of the horrors of Hitler's Germany. Chances are, you will at one point visit one of the concentration camps of Buchenwald or Auschwitz and schools go through great lenghts to get jewish orators who have witnessed Nazi Germany first hand. History programs on TV eat up that chapter as well and the Federal Agency for Civic Education offers a plethora of different magazines for free so one can educate oneself even further.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
How do other Germans deal with these issues?
German constitution gives anyone including the Nazis the right for public assembly, NPD-member ofttimes gather in large numbers to March for their misguided cause and try to recruit members.
Obviously, the rest of Germany isn't oblivious to those assemblies and since the right-wing-extremists are vastly outnumbered, usually peaceful protest prevents them from marching.
Personal opinion
To be perfectly clear, I don't suggest that in 10 years time we'll go about killing Jews and invading Poland again, I just want to express my anger and sadness that despite comprehensive educational matters and in times of peace of properity, there grows a new generation of antisemetic, antiislamic and antidemocratic young people who sympathise with the demonic Nazi regime.
Points of discussion
- German / Nazi related jokes - Speculation of sources (educational, economic, political etc.) - Right-wing extremists in your own country - etc.
I am with you, dude. Unfortunately nobody cares, damage is done Just look some posts above yours.... I would like to know how such a misleading, unbalanced and simply untrue thread is open for so long. Mods should really edit it..
On November 13 2012 06:17 PlaGuE_R wrote: The french far-right political party is also gaining support, they had 20% of votes last presidential election. TWENTY. so yeah. I blame the fact that immigrants nowadays refuse to assimilate and accept the culture of the country they come into. Best example is those sallafists. Not to mention that European Union's open borders means that the people in poorer European countries will come into the countries that are wealthier, like the Romanichels in France.
No offense, but why should they? French people themselves are notorious for failing to assimilate in foreign countries. Europe as a whole is a racist mess.
Does that mean that French people abroad that don't assimilate, it's ok, but they come here and it's not ok? Is THAT what you got from my post?
Let's say that was what I meant to say, I admit that when we go to say...Malaysia, we bring our deep rooted traditions of terrible treatment to women, our general hatred for anything that is not of our religion, our rituals of killing animals in the street. We also force the general population to eat halal even though they are agaisnt it. We go around and are the largest demographic to cause crime, we vandalize mosques because they're not christian holy grounds, we hold parades where all the french people hold up banners saying that Malaysia and all Asia will burn before our mighty onslaught and you are all infidels. Need I go on?
When CIVILIZED people move to another country they either assimilate or they keep to their own without being disruptive of the culture there.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
trolling? im actually dead srious believe it or not.its just you being unable to understand something that is different and new to you. and yes i am german
and i'm really interested in what the hell is going on with you. You can't really expect someone to reply to your posts seriously. You call yourself a nazi which is in itself idiotic enough and then you even say you don't share the core opinions of that ideology in the same sentence, which is totally absurd.
its not idiotic. its honest and takes a bit of courage too in current times. and what is so hard to believe about someone thinking he is something without being able to explain exactly why and maybe not even knowing it himself.. isnt life a search for ones self for all of us to some extent. im just halfway done wiht this journey apparently
Then I would simply suggest you to actually put the time in to evaluate and examinate your core believes. Just take time and read "Mein Kampf". You will realize that racism in NS ideology is inherent. As you describe yourself as non racist this should lead to looking for something different.
just like any ideology its not comepltely linear. just like the koran mein kampf is open to interprertation. also i will not read that filth for it is racist and extremist which is horrible in my opinion. i already stated why i like to consider myself a nazi which is that it gives me a sense of belonging. dont really see the problem in that. there are many "christians" or members of the church who dont believe in god but are still members of the church for reasons not associated witht the core belief of the institution.
unfortunately for you, your political affiliation was responsible for one of the most horrific act and continues to do horrible things in small scale. It is naive for you to think that people would accept your ideology especially when you guys didnt even bother to change the friggin name Nazi. That name alone is insulting enough on human race in 21st century.
you can argue about crusade and Christians but since then they have moved on from hatred towards peace and acceptance. Exactly opposite of your views
DONT forget child abuse... and im used to people getting caught up on me being a nazi. but oh well in a world full of prejudice and ideological prosecution it does get tough at times
?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!????!!?!?!?!???
on topic: Hungary? Nationalism with NeoNazi tendencies right on the border of the EU...
There will be no uprising of Neonazis in Germany for the next 10 years. I promise ^^
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
Fuck yeah, we're too dangerous for this world.
LOL, Classic. Shit, if any country on the planet right now has too much firepower and a track record for picking fights I don't think it would be Germany.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
Fuck yeah, we're too dangerous for this world.
Maybe a glorious fight to the last man is preferable to getting replaced by immigrants. Lets hope they dont nuke us in the first few days of our new world war 3.
15% is not halve as bad as the 25% of france who supports the front national. (france historically also is way more antisemite then germany i have been told, though i dont know how much truth is in this)
Its impossible to have a decent discussion about this further unfortunatly, the subject is way to controversial to say annything objective about it.
On November 13 2012 04:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:go ron paul etc because he cares for us
Couldn't really have put it better, politicians in this country try so very, very hard to look like they can connect with the populace and fail just as hard. If they put as much effort into actually giving a fuck who knows what they could achieve...
it's not only politicians who see fringe parties as fringe.
On November 13 2012 04:49 farvacola wrote:
On November 13 2012 04:41 MoltkeWarding wrote:
On November 13 2012 03:28 schaf wrote: I think in Germany the whole WW2 education backfired a bit. I agree it has to be done and it's good that we get it in school a lot. But when I was growing up (mid 20s now), it felt like being German is actually a bad thing. You get constantly confronted with the horros and of the past and their guilt. My parents were not a particular help in that regard either as they were heavily influenced by the hippie movement. So, if you grow up in that environment every identification with your nation is basically taken from you (might seem a bit extreme, but with me that was the case) and if you want to be a non-conformist or a rebel in school, you look for things that are 'forbidden'.
The NPD is a joke. But they actually have a good strategy. They do offers for young people in areas where there is nothing else, do free jurisdictional advice for unemployed people, do community festivals - and the people buy it. It works.
All in all, I wouldn't call all followers of the NPD as Neo-Nazis.
And there are countries who have a much more severe problem with this, for example Russia (yes!):
When I first visited Berlin several years ago, I stood under the Brandenburger Tor, with a plaque detailing the glorious events of March 1848, supposed to remind us of the best political traditions of Germany's ancestors, in contrast to 1870 and 1933. The plaque commemorated Germany's first liberal-democrats, how they rose up for their rights against an authoritarian regime, how they for a wrinkle in time seized the destiny of the nation and seemed to propel it to a hopeful future.
This is the kind of dogma, half naive, half ridiculous, which is being commonly propagated as "History" in Germany today, in classrooms, media and the popular imagination. The National Assembly which assembled in Frankfurt in 1848 eventually perished under the duress of its own national radicalism, and was forced to prostitute itself out to Frederick William IV, who wound up protecting his "democrats" from the people, but rightly refused to pick his crown up from the gutter. No one today will teach 1848 as an object lesson in the failures of historical German liberalism and constitutionalism, an episode whose multifaceted complexities, by the way, would have been more profoundly understood under the classical curricula of such authoritarian regimes as Bismarck's Prussia or Hitler's National Socialist Germany than by the historically tone-deaf people of today.
It is being trumpeted as a milestone event in the progress of Germany because national curriculum of self-censorship has practically eradicated all other political achievements from German memory. It has painted the sweep of Germany with a broad brush and, while subscribing to the Sonderweg theory that all of Germany's history must be read under the dim shadow of the Third Reich, occasionally pretends to promote Germany's Western legacy by citing and mis-citing such episodes as the March Revolution or Operation Walküre. This kind of post ex-facto ideological manipulation exists all over the place. The German Biedermeier is more properly the teleological Vormärz, the War Credits vote of the SPD in 1914 is now seen as an departure from political norms in German history, rather than its conformity to it.
This is all perhaps only ephemerally relevant to the issue at hand. Looking at the OP, however, and reading the report by the Friederich-Ebert-Stiftung, it's obvious that some things are being misrepresented. In the Spiegel-polls, the NDP does not command enough support to enter any State parliament in Germany apart from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where the polls show them at 6%. The Survey of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung has a list of questions so leading, that sometimes an answer which reveals a discerning historical understanding will be registered ideologically as “Rechtsextrem”
i.e.
Question 1:
Im nationalen Interesse ist unter bestimmten Umständen eine Diktatur die bessere Staatsform
Quite apart from the fact that this question betrays a lack of understanding as to what Dictatorship is, a classical scholar who admires Sulla might agree to this statement, and be labelled an extremist. The leading clause is the stipulation “unter bestimmten Umständen,” which vastly inflates the number of people who will be labelled inaccurately.
Question 2:
Ohne Judenvernichtung würde man Hitler heute als großen Staatsmann ansehen.
The leading aspect of this question is raised by its very hypothetical nature. You might as well ask if Hitler behaved as Mother Theresa, would he be seen as a saint today? The question is deliberately drawing on the great Hitler-biographer Joachim Fest's assertion in the introduction of his 1974 biography: Shall we call him great?
Fest asserted in his biograhpy that had Hitler died in 1938, he would have gone down in history as the greatest of German statesmen, surpassing Bismarck. These are debatable, but not trivial postulations. Yet under the consideration of the F-E-Stiftung, a lifelong bourgeois conservative like Fest would have been labelled an extremist.
The list goes on and on, deducing folly from folly. Finally all this “information” is reduced to a number ready for publication. After a long, exhaustive, methodological study, the final results conclude that the percentage of people holding extreme-right attitudes in Germany have grown from 6.6 percent to 15.8 percent. People are shocked. New resolutions are made from the left to accelerate the social and mental terraforming of the nation. We have to make German history even more mendacious and crude. We have to educate people better. We have to address socio-economic inequality.
Call me old-fashioned, but I have a better thermometer of measuring the presence of extremism in modern life. I go on the internet and see which people are going into a crazed frenzy calling everything else extreme.
This post was a highly enjoyable read, I recommend everyone read this before thinking too hard on the "evidence" presented in the OP.
disagree. the more 'thoughtful' the more pernicious when it comes to a defense of reactionary thinking. on a tactical level there may be an argument of turning to a more content based examination of the ideas and histories, rather than using sanctions and labels. however, at the same time the shadow of those ideas and histories is quite concrete no matter which approach.
for people who think it's okay, or even glorious, the examination has already been done and they are overruled. they should be condemned with pleasure, and that's all.
Shadows are not concrete. And there is always the most compelling argument of all for having the full picture of history. Sanctions and labels are simply a way to make the shadow you prefer as "concrete" as possible, with regard for the truth being a secondary concern if a concern at all.
Yes, thoughtful criticisms are more dangerous to an interpretation or opinion than those that are not, I don't see what your point is besides saying that what you think is so true and right that people should just turn their brains off and enjoy the sanctions and labels they're being fed.
shadows is the word because it was used in a scary scary sense to trivialize concrete history. the shadow of the third reich, for instance, is quite concrete.
there is no shortage of factual determination of the issue. there is however a distinct need for moral sanctions of the sort that prevents the moral stance against what nazis did and stood for from becoming arguable, relativizable, etc.
The real absurdity of democratic fanaticism is that they are always pretending that what's unpopular is too dangerously popular, and what's popular is lamentably unpopular. There's a kind of ethical self-satisfaction in the knowledge that you are an advocate of something that needs to be said, and yet the only people to whom you say them are ones who already agree with you. What we need is the easy moral satisfaction of being right without the hard work of learning.
In other words, if oneofthem had lived in the Third Reich, he would have understood all about the predatory innuendo of the Jewish press, and lamented the lack of foresight in his fellow citizens in spotting out the Jewish danger. Never mind whether or not he knew anything about Jews, their culture, history or theology.
For some reason people nowadays are always imagining themselves to be mentally ahead of the curve while they're just straggling along.
On November 13 2012 06:05 Blackfeather wrote: after getting to know somebody who was part of the right movement for some time i have to say that the way we see this development from the outside is wrong.
while being even more retarded, the npd is not the nsdap, meaning they dont proclaim to kill all jews and start a war but represent themselves as a right winged not anti-democratic party. That's enough for many to make them electable.
What makes them pick up members is that they essentially try to say is that they think that Germans should have better jobs than non Germans in Germany, a thought that while racist and small-minded, draws lots of attention by the poor and uneducated who begrudge people who have more and are looking for a scapegoat. Which is exactly why they are stronger in the east.
In the same way you could ask why the left extreme party gets any votes, being the successors of the sed. Both parties get votes from those who lack education, so focusing this late in school wont help at all. Changing the school system into something more motivating or programs to increase the job chances of the guys who skipped school is probably the way to go.
trolling? im actually dead srious believe it or not.its just you being unable to understand something that is different and new to you. and yes i am german
and i'm really interested in what the hell is going on with you. You can't really expect someone to reply to your posts seriously. You call yourself a nazi which is in itself idiotic enough and then you even say you don't share the core opinions of that ideology in the same sentence, which is totally absurd.
its not idiotic. its honest and takes a bit of courage too in current times. and what is so hard to believe about someone thinking he is something without being able to explain exactly why and maybe not even knowing it himself.. isnt life a search for ones self for all of us to some extent. im just halfway done wiht this journey apparently
Then I would simply suggest you to actually put the time in to evaluate and examinate your core believes. Just take time and read "Mein Kampf". You will realize that racism in NS ideology is inherent. As you describe yourself as non racist this should lead to looking for something different.
just like any ideology its not comepltely linear. just like the koran mein kampf is open to interprertation. also i will not read that filth for it is racist and extremist which is horrible in my opinion. i already stated why i like to consider myself a nazi which is that it gives me a sense of belonging. dont really see the problem in that. there are many "christians" or members of the church who dont believe in god but are still members of the church for reasons not associated witht the core belief of the institution.
unfortunately for you, your political affiliation was responsible for one of the most horrific act and continues to do horrible things in small scale. It is naive for you to think that people would accept your ideology especially when you guys didnt even bother to change the friggin name Nazi. That name alone is insulting enough on human race in 21st century.
you can argue about crusade and Christians but since then they have moved on from hatred towards peace and acceptance. Exactly opposite of your views
DONT forget child abuse... and im used to people getting caught up on me being a nazi. but oh well in a world full of prejudice and ideological prosecution it does get tough at times
your comparison is legit, the church committed genocides and burnings of minorities too. On the other hand the child abuses while being something that is probably the result of the celibacy, are not something the church as an institution encourages but pretty much the deeds of individual persons. The church has moral basics that to some extend are positive and has tried in the last few hundred years to do some things to make up for the crap they did. I fail to see how the same can be said for nazis, especially since nazi is a word that was created exclusively to describe followers of Hitler, whom you seem to condemn. Nazi does not equal being a nationalist and a socialist at the same time, but being a follower of Hitlers agenda.
apparentaly our understanding what makes out a nazi differ. i will limit my reply to this as i was kindly asked by TL staff to quit posting in the manner i have over the past hours. i had a great time discussing my identity with my fellow TLers. gg
On November 13 2012 06:17 PlaGuE_R wrote: The french far-right political party is also gaining support, they had 20% of votes last presidential election. TWENTY. so yeah. I blame the fact that immigrants nowadays refuse to assimilate and accept the culture of the country they come into. Best example is those sallafists. Not to mention that European Union's open borders means that the people in poorer European countries will come into the countries that are wealthier, like the Romanichels in France.
No offense, but why should they? French people themselves are notorious for failing to assimilate in foreign countries. Europe as a whole is a racist mess.
If you're really from Malaysia, what the fuck do you know about Europe? Don't accuse us if you provide no evidence.
On November 13 2012 06:05 Blackfeather wrote: after getting to know somebody who was part of the right movement for some time i have to say that the way we see this development from the outside is wrong.
while being even more retarded, the npd is not the nsdap, meaning they dont proclaim to kill all jews and start a war but represent themselves as a right winged not anti-democratic party. That's enough for many to make them electable.
What makes them pick up members is that they essentially try to say is that they think that Germans should have better jobs than non Germans in Germany, a thought that while racist and small-minded, draws lots of attention by the poor and uneducated who begrudge people who have more and are looking for a scapegoat. Which is exactly why they are stronger in the east.
In the same way you could ask why the left extreme party gets any votes, being the successors of the sed. Both parties get votes from those who lack education, so focusing this late in school wont help at all. Changing the school system into something more motivating or programs to increase the job chances of the guys who skipped school is probably the way to go.
On November 13 2012 06:05 lahara wrote:
On November 13 2012 06:03 Govou wrote:
On November 13 2012 05:57 lahara wrote:
On November 13 2012 05:52 AngryMag wrote:
On November 13 2012 05:49 lahara wrote:
On November 13 2012 05:43 Nyxisto wrote:
trolling? im actually dead srious believe it or not.its just you being unable to understand something that is different and new to you. and yes i am german
and i'm really interested in what the hell is going on with you. You can't really expect someone to reply to your posts seriously. You call yourself a nazi which is in itself idiotic enough and then you even say you don't share the core opinions of that ideology in the same sentence, which is totally absurd.
its not idiotic. its honest and takes a bit of courage too in current times. and what is so hard to believe about someone thinking he is something without being able to explain exactly why and maybe not even knowing it himself.. isnt life a search for ones self for all of us to some extent. im just halfway done wiht this journey apparently
Then I would simply suggest you to actually put the time in to evaluate and examinate your core believes. Just take time and read "Mein Kampf". You will realize that racism in NS ideology is inherent. As you describe yourself as non racist this should lead to looking for something different.
just like any ideology its not comepltely linear. just like the koran mein kampf is open to interprertation. also i will not read that filth for it is racist and extremist which is horrible in my opinion. i already stated why i like to consider myself a nazi which is that it gives me a sense of belonging. dont really see the problem in that. there are many "christians" or members of the church who dont believe in god but are still members of the church for reasons not associated witht the core belief of the institution.
unfortunately for you, your political affiliation was responsible for one of the most horrific act and continues to do horrible things in small scale. It is naive for you to think that people would accept your ideology especially when you guys didnt even bother to change the friggin name Nazi. That name alone is insulting enough on human race in 21st century.
you can argue about crusade and Christians but since then they have moved on from hatred towards peace and acceptance. Exactly opposite of your views
DONT forget child abuse... and im used to people getting caught up on me being a nazi. but oh well in a world full of prejudice and ideological prosecution it does get tough at times
your comparison is legit, the church committed genocides and burnings of minorities too. On the other hand the child abuses while being something that is probably the result of the celibacy, are not something the church as an institution encourages but pretty much the deeds of individual persons. The church has moral basics that to some extend are positive and has tried in the last few hundred years to do some things to make up for the crap they did. I fail to see how the same can be said for nazis, especially since nazi is a word that was created exclusively to describe followers of Hitler, whom you seem to condemn. Nazi does not equal being a nationalist and a socialist at the same time, but being a follower of Hitlers agenda.
apparentaly our understanding what makes out a nazi differ. i will limit my reply to this as i was kindly asked by TL staff to quit posting in the manner i have over the past hours. i had a great time discussing my identity with my fellow TLers. gg
LiquidLahara
I dont think theyll be too happy with a self proclaimed nazi putting the liquid tag in front of his name
On November 13 2012 04:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:go ron paul etc because he cares for us
Couldn't really have put it better, politicians in this country try so very, very hard to look like they can connect with the populace and fail just as hard. If they put as much effort into actually giving a fuck who knows what they could achieve...
it's not only politicians who see fringe parties as fringe.
On November 13 2012 04:49 farvacola wrote:
On November 13 2012 04:41 MoltkeWarding wrote:
On November 13 2012 03:28 schaf wrote: I think in Germany the whole WW2 education backfired a bit. I agree it has to be done and it's good that we get it in school a lot. But when I was growing up (mid 20s now), it felt like being German is actually a bad thing. You get constantly confronted with the horros and of the past and their guilt. My parents were not a particular help in that regard either as they were heavily influenced by the hippie movement. So, if you grow up in that environment every identification with your nation is basically taken from you (might seem a bit extreme, but with me that was the case) and if you want to be a non-conformist or a rebel in school, you look for things that are 'forbidden'.
The NPD is a joke. But they actually have a good strategy. They do offers for young people in areas where there is nothing else, do free jurisdictional advice for unemployed people, do community festivals - and the people buy it. It works.
All in all, I wouldn't call all followers of the NPD as Neo-Nazis.
And there are countries who have a much more severe problem with this, for example Russia (yes!):
When I first visited Berlin several years ago, I stood under the Brandenburger Tor, with a plaque detailing the glorious events of March 1848, supposed to remind us of the best political traditions of Germany's ancestors, in contrast to 1870 and 1933. The plaque commemorated Germany's first liberal-democrats, how they rose up for their rights against an authoritarian regime, how they for a wrinkle in time seized the destiny of the nation and seemed to propel it to a hopeful future.
This is the kind of dogma, half naive, half ridiculous, which is being commonly propagated as "History" in Germany today, in classrooms, media and the popular imagination. The National Assembly which assembled in Frankfurt in 1848 eventually perished under the duress of its own national radicalism, and was forced to prostitute itself out to Frederick William IV, who wound up protecting his "democrats" from the people, but rightly refused to pick his crown up from the gutter. No one today will teach 1848 as an object lesson in the failures of historical German liberalism and constitutionalism, an episode whose multifaceted complexities, by the way, would have been more profoundly understood under the classical curricula of such authoritarian regimes as Bismarck's Prussia or Hitler's National Socialist Germany than by the historically tone-deaf people of today.
It is being trumpeted as a milestone event in the progress of Germany because national curriculum of self-censorship has practically eradicated all other political achievements from German memory. It has painted the sweep of Germany with a broad brush and, while subscribing to the Sonderweg theory that all of Germany's history must be read under the dim shadow of the Third Reich, occasionally pretends to promote Germany's Western legacy by citing and mis-citing such episodes as the March Revolution or Operation Walküre. This kind of post ex-facto ideological manipulation exists all over the place. The German Biedermeier is more properly the teleological Vormärz, the War Credits vote of the SPD in 1914 is now seen as an departure from political norms in German history, rather than its conformity to it.
This is all perhaps only ephemerally relevant to the issue at hand. Looking at the OP, however, and reading the report by the Friederich-Ebert-Stiftung, it's obvious that some things are being misrepresented. In the Spiegel-polls, the NDP does not command enough support to enter any State parliament in Germany apart from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where the polls show them at 6%. The Survey of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung has a list of questions so leading, that sometimes an answer which reveals a discerning historical understanding will be registered ideologically as “Rechtsextrem”
i.e.
Question 1:
Im nationalen Interesse ist unter bestimmten Umständen eine Diktatur die bessere Staatsform
Quite apart from the fact that this question betrays a lack of understanding as to what Dictatorship is, a classical scholar who admires Sulla might agree to this statement, and be labelled an extremist. The leading clause is the stipulation “unter bestimmten Umständen,” which vastly inflates the number of people who will be labelled inaccurately.
Question 2:
Ohne Judenvernichtung würde man Hitler heute als großen Staatsmann ansehen.
The leading aspect of this question is raised by its very hypothetical nature. You might as well ask if Hitler behaved as Mother Theresa, would he be seen as a saint today? The question is deliberately drawing on the great Hitler-biographer Joachim Fest's assertion in the introduction of his 1974 biography: Shall we call him great?
Fest asserted in his biograhpy that had Hitler died in 1938, he would have gone down in history as the greatest of German statesmen, surpassing Bismarck. These are debatable, but not trivial postulations. Yet under the consideration of the F-E-Stiftung, a lifelong bourgeois conservative like Fest would have been labelled an extremist.
The list goes on and on, deducing folly from folly. Finally all this “information” is reduced to a number ready for publication. After a long, exhaustive, methodological study, the final results conclude that the percentage of people holding extreme-right attitudes in Germany have grown from 6.6 percent to 15.8 percent. People are shocked. New resolutions are made from the left to accelerate the social and mental terraforming of the nation. We have to make German history even more mendacious and crude. We have to educate people better. We have to address socio-economic inequality.
Call me old-fashioned, but I have a better thermometer of measuring the presence of extremism in modern life. I go on the internet and see which people are going into a crazed frenzy calling everything else extreme.
This post was a highly enjoyable read, I recommend everyone read this before thinking too hard on the "evidence" presented in the OP.
disagree. the more 'thoughtful' the more pernicious when it comes to a defense of reactionary thinking. on a tactical level there may be an argument of turning to a more content based examination of the ideas and histories, rather than using sanctions and labels. however, at the same time the shadow of those ideas and histories is quite concrete no matter which approach.
for people who think it's okay, or even glorious, the examination has already been done and they are overruled. they should be condemned with pleasure, and that's all.
Shadows are not concrete. And there is always the most compelling argument of all for having the full picture of history. Sanctions and labels are simply a way to make the shadow you prefer as "concrete" as possible, with regard for the truth being a secondary concern if a concern at all.
Yes, thoughtful criticisms are more dangerous to an interpretation or opinion than those that are not, I don't see what your point is besides saying that what you think is so true and right that people should just turn their brains off and enjoy the sanctions and labels they're being fed.
shadows is the word because it was used in a scary scary sense to trivialize concrete history. the shadow of the third reich, for instance, is quite concrete.
there is no shortage of factual determination of the issue. there is however a distinct need for moral sanctions of the sort that prevents the moral stance against what nazis did and stood for from becoming arguable, relativizable, etc.
The real absurdity of democratic fanaticism is that they are always pretending that what's unpopular is too dangerously popular, and what's popular is lamentably unpopular. There's a kind of ethical self-satisfaction in the knowledge that you are an advocate of something that needs to be said, and yet the only people to whom you say them are ones who already agree with you. What we need is the easy moral satisfaction of being right without the hard work of learning.
In other words, if oneofthem had lived in the Third Reich, he would have understood all about the predatory innuendo of the Jewish press, and lamented the lack of foresight in his fellow citizens in spotting out the Jewish danger. Never mind whether or not he knew anything about Jews, their culture, history or theology.
For some reason people nowadays are always imagining themselves to be mentally ahead of the curve while they're just straggling along.
This is the most important point of this thread. I can sleep peacefully now.
On November 13 2012 04:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:go ron paul etc because he cares for us
Couldn't really have put it better, politicians in this country try so very, very hard to look like they can connect with the populace and fail just as hard. If they put as much effort into actually giving a fuck who knows what they could achieve...
it's not only politicians who see fringe parties as fringe.
On November 13 2012 04:49 farvacola wrote:
On November 13 2012 04:41 MoltkeWarding wrote:
On November 13 2012 03:28 schaf wrote: I think in Germany the whole WW2 education backfired a bit. I agree it has to be done and it's good that we get it in school a lot. But when I was growing up (mid 20s now), it felt like being German is actually a bad thing. You get constantly confronted with the horros and of the past and their guilt. My parents were not a particular help in that regard either as they were heavily influenced by the hippie movement. So, if you grow up in that environment every identification with your nation is basically taken from you (might seem a bit extreme, but with me that was the case) and if you want to be a non-conformist or a rebel in school, you look for things that are 'forbidden'.
The NPD is a joke. But they actually have a good strategy. They do offers for young people in areas where there is nothing else, do free jurisdictional advice for unemployed people, do community festivals - and the people buy it. It works.
All in all, I wouldn't call all followers of the NPD as Neo-Nazis.
And there are countries who have a much more severe problem with this, for example Russia (yes!):
When I first visited Berlin several years ago, I stood under the Brandenburger Tor, with a plaque detailing the glorious events of March 1848, supposed to remind us of the best political traditions of Germany's ancestors, in contrast to 1870 and 1933. The plaque commemorated Germany's first liberal-democrats, how they rose up for their rights against an authoritarian regime, how they for a wrinkle in time seized the destiny of the nation and seemed to propel it to a hopeful future.
This is the kind of dogma, half naive, half ridiculous, which is being commonly propagated as "History" in Germany today, in classrooms, media and the popular imagination. The National Assembly which assembled in Frankfurt in 1848 eventually perished under the duress of its own national radicalism, and was forced to prostitute itself out to Frederick William IV, who wound up protecting his "democrats" from the people, but rightly refused to pick his crown up from the gutter. No one today will teach 1848 as an object lesson in the failures of historical German liberalism and constitutionalism, an episode whose multifaceted complexities, by the way, would have been more profoundly understood under the classical curricula of such authoritarian regimes as Bismarck's Prussia or Hitler's National Socialist Germany than by the historically tone-deaf people of today.
It is being trumpeted as a milestone event in the progress of Germany because national curriculum of self-censorship has practically eradicated all other political achievements from German memory. It has painted the sweep of Germany with a broad brush and, while subscribing to the Sonderweg theory that all of Germany's history must be read under the dim shadow of the Third Reich, occasionally pretends to promote Germany's Western legacy by citing and mis-citing such episodes as the March Revolution or Operation Walküre. This kind of post ex-facto ideological manipulation exists all over the place. The German Biedermeier is more properly the teleological Vormärz, the War Credits vote of the SPD in 1914 is now seen as an departure from political norms in German history, rather than its conformity to it.
This is all perhaps only ephemerally relevant to the issue at hand. Looking at the OP, however, and reading the report by the Friederich-Ebert-Stiftung, it's obvious that some things are being misrepresented. In the Spiegel-polls, the NDP does not command enough support to enter any State parliament in Germany apart from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where the polls show them at 6%. The Survey of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung has a list of questions so leading, that sometimes an answer which reveals a discerning historical understanding will be registered ideologically as “Rechtsextrem”
i.e.
Question 1:
Im nationalen Interesse ist unter bestimmten Umständen eine Diktatur die bessere Staatsform
Quite apart from the fact that this question betrays a lack of understanding as to what Dictatorship is, a classical scholar who admires Sulla might agree to this statement, and be labelled an extremist. The leading clause is the stipulation “unter bestimmten Umständen,” which vastly inflates the number of people who will be labelled inaccurately.
Question 2:
Ohne Judenvernichtung würde man Hitler heute als großen Staatsmann ansehen.
The leading aspect of this question is raised by its very hypothetical nature. You might as well ask if Hitler behaved as Mother Theresa, would he be seen as a saint today? The question is deliberately drawing on the great Hitler-biographer Joachim Fest's assertion in the introduction of his 1974 biography: Shall we call him great?
Fest asserted in his biograhpy that had Hitler died in 1938, he would have gone down in history as the greatest of German statesmen, surpassing Bismarck. These are debatable, but not trivial postulations. Yet under the consideration of the F-E-Stiftung, a lifelong bourgeois conservative like Fest would have been labelled an extremist.
The list goes on and on, deducing folly from folly. Finally all this “information” is reduced to a number ready for publication. After a long, exhaustive, methodological study, the final results conclude that the percentage of people holding extreme-right attitudes in Germany have grown from 6.6 percent to 15.8 percent. People are shocked. New resolutions are made from the left to accelerate the social and mental terraforming of the nation. We have to make German history even more mendacious and crude. We have to educate people better. We have to address socio-economic inequality.
Call me old-fashioned, but I have a better thermometer of measuring the presence of extremism in modern life. I go on the internet and see which people are going into a crazed frenzy calling everything else extreme.
This post was a highly enjoyable read, I recommend everyone read this before thinking too hard on the "evidence" presented in the OP.
disagree. the more 'thoughtful' the more pernicious when it comes to a defense of reactionary thinking. on a tactical level there may be an argument of turning to a more content based examination of the ideas and histories, rather than using sanctions and labels. however, at the same time the shadow of those ideas and histories is quite concrete no matter which approach.
for people who think it's okay, or even glorious, the examination has already been done and they are overruled. they should be condemned with pleasure, and that's all.
Shadows are not concrete. And there is always the most compelling argument of all for having the full picture of history. Sanctions and labels are simply a way to make the shadow you prefer as "concrete" as possible, with regard for the truth being a secondary concern if a concern at all.
Yes, thoughtful criticisms are more dangerous to an interpretation or opinion than those that are not, I don't see what your point is besides saying that what you think is so true and right that people should just turn their brains off and enjoy the sanctions and labels they're being fed.
shadows is the word because it was used in a scary scary sense to trivialize concrete history. the shadow of the third reich, for instance, is quite concrete.
there is no shortage of factual determination of the issue. there is however a distinct need for moral sanctions of the sort that prevents the moral stance against what nazis did and stood for from becoming arguable, relativizable, etc.
The real absurdity of democratic fanaticism is that they are always pretending that what's unpopular is too dangerously popular, and what's popular is lamentably unpopular. There's a kind of ethical self-satisfaction in the knowledge that you are an advocate of something that needs to be said, and yet the only people to whom you say them are ones who already agree with you. What we need is the easy moral satisfaction of being right without the hard work of learning.
In other words, if oneofthem had lived in the Third Reich, he would have understood all about the predatory innuendo of the Jewish press, and lamented the lack of foresight in his fellow citizens in spotting out the Jewish danger. Never mind whether or not he knew anything about Jews, their culture, history or theology.
For some reason people nowadays are always imagining themselves to be mentally ahead of the curve while they're just straggling along.
it was never about what is popular or unpopular, to represent 'democratic fanaticism' whatever that means as simply reverse hipsterism is to badly miss the point. the worry is always about the moral deficiency in society which is repeated and emphasized after the war (though somehow not applying to apartheid regimes or israel until later).
read your arendt or something. if you ever read anything in the 19th century and beyond.
I have relatives living in Europe, it's not like the World is completely disconnected in this day and age... Tons of ridiculous racist propaganda and ideology is floating around there. You get the same shit in America or anywhere else but it's usually restricted mostly to uneducated people. In Europe you get highly educated people buying into this crap, which is arguably much more dangerous.
On November 13 2012 06:38 SupLilSon wrote: I have relatives living in Europe, it's not like the World is completely disconnected in this day and age... Tons of ridiculous racist propaganda and ideology is floating around there. You get the same shit in America or anywhere else but it's usually restricted mostly to uneducated people. In Europe you get highly educated people buying into this crap, which is arguably much more dangerous.
Lets gather all of europe which differs immensely in terms of culture, put it into one box and then slap a racism sticker on it.
What gives you the idea that high educated people in europe are buying into racist propaganda?
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
If you are going to troll, at least get your numbers right.
Sweden 5.2 Belgium 5.3 Switzerland 4.4 Finland 3.7 Poland 9.1 Austria 3.4 Czech 2.5 Netherlands 11.0 Norway 7.1 ----- Total 51.7
On November 13 2012 06:38 SupLilSon wrote: I have relatives living in Europe, it's not like the World is completely disconnected in this day and age... Tons of ridiculous racist propaganda and ideology is floating around there. You get the same shit in America or anywhere else but it's usually restricted mostly to uneducated people. In Europe you get highly educated people buying into this crap, which is arguably much more dangerous.
Lets gather all of europe which differs immensely in terms of culture, put it into one box and then slap a racism sticker on it.
What gives you the idea that high educated people in europe are buying into racist propaganda?
It's anecdotal, but one of my cousins who grew up and lives in England is a successful doctor. He also truly believes that Jews run the American media and are the root of all evil.
He's not some antisocial nut who has crazy ideas. Him and his friends, who are also educated doctors buy into this propaganda.
As long as people see extreme right as "crap" and cant imagine why people are voting for it, there will always be a place for these partys, They adress isues wich are important for a significant part of the population who feel thoose isues are not adressed by the mainstream partys, who are only pushing globalisation. People are so afraid of extreme right in europe (and specially germany) that they are blinded for the sometimes valid points they raise, I guess the right wing extremist partys can also be blamed for this, since beside raising valid points they also raise a few idiotic points. Still people and mainstream politics should learn from this, The partys fill a demand that obviously is not filled by mainstream politics. I even think manny people who vote extreme right dont neccesarely agree with all of points of the party, they might even disagree with most of them, but they are so fed up with the mainstream partys that they still vote extreme right.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
Dear god, I hope you're trolling. A super liberal and modern society that has a small % of total military spending in the world is such a huge threat? LOL.
trolling? im actually dead srious believe it or not.its just you being unable to understand something that is different and new to you. and yes i am german
and i'm really interested in what the hell is going on with you. You can't really expect someone to reply to your posts seriously. You call yourself a nazi which is in itself idiotic enough and then you even say you don't share the core opinions of that ideology in the same sentence, which is totally absurd.
its not idiotic. its honest and takes a bit of courage too in current times. and what is so hard to believe about someone thinking he is something without being able to explain exactly why and maybe not even knowing it himself.. isnt life a search for ones self for all of us to some extent. im just halfway done wiht this journey apparently
Then I would simply suggest you to actually put the time in to evaluate and examinate your core believes. Just take time and read "Mein Kampf". You will realize that racism in NS ideology is inherent. As you describe yourself as non racist this should lead to looking for something different.
just like any ideology its not comepltely linear. just like the koran mein kampf is open to interprertation. also i will not read that filth for it is racist and extremist which is horrible in my opinion. i already stated why i like to consider myself a nazi which is that it gives me a sense of belonging. dont really see the problem in that. there are many "christians" or members of the church who dont believe in god but are still members of the church for reasons not associated witht the core belief of the institution.
unfortunately for you, your political affiliation was responsible for one of the most horrific act and continues to do horrible things in small scale. It is naive for you to think that people would accept your ideology especially when you guys didnt even bother to change the friggin name Nazi. That name alone is insulting enough on human race in 21st century.
you can argue about crusade and Christians but since then they have moved on from hatred towards peace and acceptance. Exactly opposite of your views
So christards used to be evil but now they're cool in your books? They never changed their name either.
So why couldn't nazis do the same and "move on"? Not that they necessarily should value peace and acceptance of course,
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
If you didn´t know, combine the population or area of these countries and Germany is bigger.
For obvious reasons you forgot poland (larger per capita), sweden((larger per capita) Poland (larger per capita) and France (larger per capita). Compared to the position of influence Germany commands in the world the military is Laughable.
That is, and never was the power of Germany it was industry and education.
trolling? im actually dead srious believe it or not.its just you being unable to understand something that is different and new to you. and yes i am german
and i'm really interested in what the hell is going on with you. You can't really expect someone to reply to your posts seriously. You call yourself a nazi which is in itself idiotic enough and then you even say you don't share the core opinions of that ideology in the same sentence, which is totally absurd.
its not idiotic. its honest and takes a bit of courage too in current times. and what is so hard to believe about someone thinking he is something without being able to explain exactly why and maybe not even knowing it himself.. isnt life a search for ones self for all of us to some extent. im just halfway done wiht this journey apparently
Then I would simply suggest you to actually put the time in to evaluate and examinate your core believes. Just take time and read "Mein Kampf". You will realize that racism in NS ideology is inherent. As you describe yourself as non racist this should lead to looking for something different.
just like any ideology its not comepltely linear. just like the koran mein kampf is open to interprertation. also i will not read that filth for it is racist and extremist which is horrible in my opinion. i already stated why i like to consider myself a nazi which is that it gives me a sense of belonging. dont really see the problem in that. there are many "christians" or members of the church who dont believe in god but are still members of the church for reasons not associated witht the core belief of the institution.
unfortunately for you, your political affiliation was responsible for one of the most horrific act and continues to do horrible things in small scale. It is naive for you to think that people would accept your ideology especially when you guys didnt even bother to change the friggin name Nazi. That name alone is insulting enough on human race in 21st century.
you can argue about crusade and Christians but since then they have moved on from hatred towards peace and acceptance. Exactly opposite of your views
So christards used to be evil but now they're cool in your books? They never changed their name either.
This is actually a really interesting point, why should Christians be allowed to use that to define themselves without rhetoric but someone following a Nazi movement is? Seems strange, if anything Christianity has been the cause of many more deaths and tortures then Hitler could ever (or Stalin for that matter) dream of commiting such that wouldn't being a Nazi be better than a Christian?
User was warned for this post
Got warned for being non-civil... Maybe that means the "poland motherfucker" if so sorry, I was meaning that as a joke T.T because he said poland twice, I don't really care if he said Poland 10x haha.
Nation states are a thing of the past, alas, most people seem to cling to the idea for reasons beyond my comprehension. Also calling parties and people right or left is a bit nonsensical, since the "extreme right" parties are often very similar to the "(extreme) left" parties, national socialism, eh?
trolling? im actually dead srious believe it or not.its just you being unable to understand something that is different and new to you. and yes i am german
and i'm really interested in what the hell is going on with you. You can't really expect someone to reply to your posts seriously. You call yourself a nazi which is in itself idiotic enough and then you even say you don't share the core opinions of that ideology in the same sentence, which is totally absurd.
its not idiotic. its honest and takes a bit of courage too in current times. and what is so hard to believe about someone thinking he is something without being able to explain exactly why and maybe not even knowing it himself.. isnt life a search for ones self for all of us to some extent. im just halfway done wiht this journey apparently
Then I would simply suggest you to actually put the time in to evaluate and examinate your core believes. Just take time and read "Mein Kampf". You will realize that racism in NS ideology is inherent. As you describe yourself as non racist this should lead to looking for something different.
just like any ideology its not comepltely linear. just like the koran mein kampf is open to interprertation. also i will not read that filth for it is racist and extremist which is horrible in my opinion. i already stated why i like to consider myself a nazi which is that it gives me a sense of belonging. dont really see the problem in that. there are many "christians" or members of the church who dont believe in god but are still members of the church for reasons not associated witht the core belief of the institution.
unfortunately for you, your political affiliation was responsible for one of the most horrific act and continues to do horrible things in small scale. It is naive for you to think that people would accept your ideology especially when you guys didnt even bother to change the friggin name Nazi. That name alone is insulting enough on human race in 21st century.
you can argue about crusade and Christians but since then they have moved on from hatred towards peace and acceptance. Exactly opposite of your views
Moved on my ass. God hates fags? Pro-life tards? Give me a break.
Well, I took a half an hour to write a handful of surface thoughts on the matter. I'll check back a few times to see if any potential reader wants clarification.
Right wing extremism will find it's sympathisers in every nation and every society.
In the countries conquered and occupied at the end of WW2, such sympathies are even more understandable. They are nations who lost their power to decide about their own fate for decades, were stuffed full of nuclear weapons and were generally prepared for annihilation in WW3 as battlegrounds.
I am not talking about anti-semitism; I am talking about militarism and hardline nationalism. Anti-semitism, and other ethnically directed "ideologies", are simple fairly unimportant parts of them, they just go well with the whole one nation one purpose preaching.
Of course there are many far rightists in Germany. Recent history dictates there must be. To the credit of the liberal political forces in power, they do everything they can, including political censure, to suppress the German far right.
Nazist and fascist parties, gatherings and adherent political speech are illegal.
Could a fascist uprising take place anyway? Yes, but it would come around in small increments. First such parties would have to be able to organise themselves officially, then they would have to gain access to mainstream media and finally be able to field their own candidates for the Bundestag and other organs of government. A coup would simply not be possible, Nazists could not gain influence within the Bundeswehr without being counteractred (never mind the fact that German military has been essentially a-political since the days of Frederick the Great*). Hitler, and the original Nazi party, gained power first through popular vote too, of course.
*Yes, some of the general staff of the Wehrmacht were what I would describe as "proper Nazies" during the days of the third reich. This does not count for many reasons. Among the more obvious ones would be that favour with the Führer was key to a succesful career.
On November 13 2012 06:54 3772 wrote: Nation states are a thing of the past, alas, most people seem to cling to the idea for reasons beyond my comprehension. Also calling parties and people right or left is a bit nonsensical, since the "extreme right" parties are often very similar to the "(extreme) left" parties, national socialism, eh?
trolling? im actually dead srious believe it or not.its just you being unable to understand something that is different and new to you. and yes i am german
and i'm really interested in what the hell is going on with you. You can't really expect someone to reply to your posts seriously. You call yourself a nazi which is in itself idiotic enough and then you even say you don't share the core opinions of that ideology in the same sentence, which is totally absurd.
its not idiotic. its honest and takes a bit of courage too in current times. and what is so hard to believe about someone thinking he is something without being able to explain exactly why and maybe not even knowing it himself.. isnt life a search for ones self for all of us to some extent. im just halfway done wiht this journey apparently
Then I would simply suggest you to actually put the time in to evaluate and examinate your core believes. Just take time and read "Mein Kampf". You will realize that racism in NS ideology is inherent. As you describe yourself as non racist this should lead to looking for something different.
just like any ideology its not comepltely linear. just like the koran mein kampf is open to interprertation. also i will not read that filth for it is racist and extremist which is horrible in my opinion. i already stated why i like to consider myself a nazi which is that it gives me a sense of belonging. dont really see the problem in that. there are many "christians" or members of the church who dont believe in god but are still members of the church for reasons not associated witht the core belief of the institution.
unfortunately for you, your political affiliation was responsible for one of the most horrific act and continues to do horrible things in small scale. It is naive for you to think that people would accept your ideology especially when you guys didnt even bother to change the friggin name Nazi. That name alone is insulting enough on human race in 21st century.
you can argue about crusade and Christians but since then they have moved on from hatred towards peace and acceptance. Exactly opposite of your views
Moved on my ass. God hates fags? Pro-life tards? Give me a break.
are you people finally beginning to understand ? and i thought hope was lost
The modern day right extremists here in Germany might not seem as outlandish as in the past. Like someone in this thread sad already, even the NPD (their party) has pleaded to uphold democratic processes and minority rights and so on.
The thing is though, these pleads are very hard to believe. Because they act like this creepy bullied kid in high school movies. They make 'death lists' of people they want gone once the 'revolution' finally comes. I swear, I am not making this up. They film the counter-demonstrators whenever they have their gatherings. They slander journalist and politicians who comment on them. And they really do believe, that in time the 'real Germans' will rise up again and then they will get rid of all these 'negative influences' like foreigners and communists and homosexuals and rich bankers and so on...
In times of hardship or emerging hardship, this is likely to happen. Someone comes along and offers them a place in society other than looking for a job and blames it on something they can agree on. Blaming for example unemployment is much easier to do with race other than say, education, because you can visualize it and hate it. If you hate something that you can't see you'd have to educate yourself, and that is waaaaay to hard for some people. So give already-outcasts something to hate from someone who is in a similar spot and the ball is starting to roll. Wouldn't be too worried about it, I mean, the french have a socialist president, THE FRENCH!
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
Past history of conflicts? You should try a little closer to home if you want a real history of conflicts.
Edit: And before accepting the unification the allies wanted a clear declaration that Germany stays in the nato and doesnt become a demilitarized neutral state. From wiki: In December 1989, the administration of President George H. W. Bush made a united Germany's continued NATO membership a requirement for supporting reunification. Kohl agreed, although less than 20% of West Germans supported remaining within NATO
closer to home? do tell.
Nato you post - why Germany as part of Nato? So the rest of Nato can keep eyes on Germany so if need be, Nato can keep Germany under its thumb like a bug.
On November 13 2012 06:38 SupLilSon wrote: I have relatives living in Europe, it's not like the World is completely disconnected in this day and age... Tons of ridiculous racist propaganda and ideology is floating around there. You get the same shit in America or anywhere else but it's usually restricted mostly to uneducated people. In Europe you get highly educated people buying into this crap, which is arguably much more dangerous.
Lets gather all of europe which differs immensely in terms of culture, put it into one box and then slap a racism sticker on it.
What gives you the idea that high educated people in europe are buying into racist propaganda?
It's anecdotal, but one of my cousins who grew up and lives in England is a successful doctor. He also truly believes that Jews run the American media and are the root of all evil.
He's not some antisocial nut who has crazy ideas. Him and his friends, who are also educated doctors buy into this propaganda.
To be fair, Jewish interests run our Foreign Policy from AIPAC, to CFR, etc. If you even dare utter a word that it is immoral to take from the individual to give to anyone else, including Israel you're derided as anti-semitic. ADL, and SPLC are also rabid racists who cry foul whenever you dare to stand up for your own liberties and rights, as if anyone else has the right to my labor, my property, or my life. That isn't to say there aren't other exceedingly dangerous interests like the MIC, but to completely disregard the fact that people like you cry racism whenever someone mentions that we should end foreign aid, stop meddling in the affairs of other countries, and bring our troops home from around the world.
You mean you want to leave Israel undefended? You mean to want to take away Israel's aid? RACIST! Anti-Semitic! You mean to tell me that AIPAC, CFR, and other Jewish-dominated interests push us in foreign conflicts, steal from individual Americans to give to Israel, and other foreign countries to bribe allegiance, etc. RACIST! Anti-Semitic!
That's a bunch of bullshit to be quite honest. You can't have any honest dialogue these days because people immediately start ad-homining and shutting down the debate by casting inflammatory oft-out right not true, remarks. Just because I believe that individuals have a natural right to their own life, liberty, property, and labor and since I deny that so-called 'right' of anyone else having such a right to it, I am anti-semitic because that includes Jewish people/Israel as well as everyone else?
If I say I am closing my store at 9PM and a black guy comes in at 9:30 and I tell him, 'sorry, we're closed', am I racist? No, that rule is for everyone. I don't care if you are black, purple, pink, or magenta.
In any event, the only problem I have is that American foreign policy is being run by foreign interests, and our boys and girls, our property, and our interests (free-trade, peace, friendship and diplomacy with all), are being subverted for the purpose and use of Israel and the MIC. God forbid anyone criticizes or laments the way Israel conducts itself (that socialist war-mongering hellhole).
On November 13 2012 04:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:go ron paul etc because he cares for us
Couldn't really have put it better, politicians in this country try so very, very hard to look like they can connect with the populace and fail just as hard. If they put as much effort into actually giving a fuck who knows what they could achieve...
it's not only politicians who see fringe parties as fringe.
On November 13 2012 04:49 farvacola wrote:
On November 13 2012 04:41 MoltkeWarding wrote:
On November 13 2012 03:28 schaf wrote: I think in Germany the whole WW2 education backfired a bit. I agree it has to be done and it's good that we get it in school a lot. But when I was growing up (mid 20s now), it felt like being German is actually a bad thing. You get constantly confronted with the horros and of the past and their guilt. My parents were not a particular help in that regard either as they were heavily influenced by the hippie movement. So, if you grow up in that environment every identification with your nation is basically taken from you (might seem a bit extreme, but with me that was the case) and if you want to be a non-conformist or a rebel in school, you look for things that are 'forbidden'.
The NPD is a joke. But they actually have a good strategy. They do offers for young people in areas where there is nothing else, do free jurisdictional advice for unemployed people, do community festivals - and the people buy it. It works.
All in all, I wouldn't call all followers of the NPD as Neo-Nazis.
And there are countries who have a much more severe problem with this, for example Russia (yes!):
When I first visited Berlin several years ago, I stood under the Brandenburger Tor, with a plaque detailing the glorious events of March 1848, supposed to remind us of the best political traditions of Germany's ancestors, in contrast to 1870 and 1933. The plaque commemorated Germany's first liberal-democrats, how they rose up for their rights against an authoritarian regime, how they for a wrinkle in time seized the destiny of the nation and seemed to propel it to a hopeful future.
This is the kind of dogma, half naive, half ridiculous, which is being commonly propagated as "History" in Germany today, in classrooms, media and the popular imagination. The National Assembly which assembled in Frankfurt in 1848 eventually perished under the duress of its own national radicalism, and was forced to prostitute itself out to Frederick William IV, who wound up protecting his "democrats" from the people, but rightly refused to pick his crown up from the gutter. No one today will teach 1848 as an object lesson in the failures of historical German liberalism and constitutionalism, an episode whose multifaceted complexities, by the way, would have been more profoundly understood under the classical curricula of such authoritarian regimes as Bismarck's Prussia or Hitler's National Socialist Germany than by the historically tone-deaf people of today.
It is being trumpeted as a milestone event in the progress of Germany because national curriculum of self-censorship has practically eradicated all other political achievements from German memory. It has painted the sweep of Germany with a broad brush and, while subscribing to the Sonderweg theory that all of Germany's history must be read under the dim shadow of the Third Reich, occasionally pretends to promote Germany's Western legacy by citing and mis-citing such episodes as the March Revolution or Operation Walküre. This kind of post ex-facto ideological manipulation exists all over the place. The German Biedermeier is more properly the teleological Vormärz, the War Credits vote of the SPD in 1914 is now seen as an departure from political norms in German history, rather than its conformity to it.
This is all perhaps only ephemerally relevant to the issue at hand. Looking at the OP, however, and reading the report by the Friederich-Ebert-Stiftung, it's obvious that some things are being misrepresented. In the Spiegel-polls, the NDP does not command enough support to enter any State parliament in Germany apart from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where the polls show them at 6%. The Survey of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung has a list of questions so leading, that sometimes an answer which reveals a discerning historical understanding will be registered ideologically as “Rechtsextrem”
i.e.
Question 1:
Im nationalen Interesse ist unter bestimmten Umständen eine Diktatur die bessere Staatsform
Quite apart from the fact that this question betrays a lack of understanding as to what Dictatorship is, a classical scholar who admires Sulla might agree to this statement, and be labelled an extremist. The leading clause is the stipulation “unter bestimmten Umständen,” which vastly inflates the number of people who will be labelled inaccurately.
Question 2:
Ohne Judenvernichtung würde man Hitler heute als großen Staatsmann ansehen.
The leading aspect of this question is raised by its very hypothetical nature. You might as well ask if Hitler behaved as Mother Theresa, would he be seen as a saint today? The question is deliberately drawing on the great Hitler-biographer Joachim Fest's assertion in the introduction of his 1974 biography: Shall we call him great?
Fest asserted in his biograhpy that had Hitler died in 1938, he would have gone down in history as the greatest of German statesmen, surpassing Bismarck. These are debatable, but not trivial postulations. Yet under the consideration of the F-E-Stiftung, a lifelong bourgeois conservative like Fest would have been labelled an extremist.
The list goes on and on, deducing folly from folly. Finally all this “information” is reduced to a number ready for publication. After a long, exhaustive, methodological study, the final results conclude that the percentage of people holding extreme-right attitudes in Germany have grown from 6.6 percent to 15.8 percent. People are shocked. New resolutions are made from the left to accelerate the social and mental terraforming of the nation. We have to make German history even more mendacious and crude. We have to educate people better. We have to address socio-economic inequality.
Call me old-fashioned, but I have a better thermometer of measuring the presence of extremism in modern life. I go on the internet and see which people are going into a crazed frenzy calling everything else extreme.
This post was a highly enjoyable read, I recommend everyone read this before thinking too hard on the "evidence" presented in the OP.
disagree. the more 'thoughtful' the more pernicious when it comes to a defense of reactionary thinking. on a tactical level there may be an argument of turning to a more content based examination of the ideas and histories, rather than using sanctions and labels. however, at the same time the shadow of those ideas and histories is quite concrete no matter which approach.
for people who think it's okay, or even glorious, the examination has already been done and they are overruled. they should be condemned with pleasure, and that's all.
Shadows are not concrete. And there is always the most compelling argument of all for having the full picture of history. Sanctions and labels are simply a way to make the shadow you prefer as "concrete" as possible, with regard for the truth being a secondary concern if a concern at all.
Yes, thoughtful criticisms are more dangerous to an interpretation or opinion than those that are not, I don't see what your point is besides saying that what you think is so true and right that people should just turn their brains off and enjoy the sanctions and labels they're being fed.
shadows is the word because it was used in a scary scary sense to trivialize concrete history. the shadow of the third reich, for instance, is quite concrete.
there is no shortage of factual determination of the issue. there is however a distinct need for moral sanctions of the sort that prevents the moral stance against what nazis did and stood for from becoming arguable, relativizable, etc.
The real absurdity of democratic fanaticism is that they are always pretending that what's unpopular is too dangerously popular, and what's popular is lamentably unpopular. There's a kind of ethical self-satisfaction in the knowledge that you are an advocate of something that needs to be said, and yet the only people to whom you say them are ones who already agree with you. What we need is the easy moral satisfaction of being right without the hard work of learning.
In other words, if oneofthem had lived in the Third Reich, he would have understood all about the predatory innuendo of the Jewish press, and lamented the lack of foresight in his fellow citizens in spotting out the Jewish danger. Never mind whether or not he knew anything about Jews, their culture, history or theology.
For some reason people nowadays are always imagining themselves to be mentally ahead of the curve while they're just straggling along.
it was never about what is popular or unpopular, to represent 'democratic fanaticism' whatever that means as simply reverse hipsterism is to badly miss the point. the worry is always about the moral deficiency in society which is repeated and emphasized after the war (though somehow not applying to apartheid regimes or israel until later).
read your arendt or something. if you ever read anything in the 19th century and beyond.
Yeah, Arendt is now required reading for most people involved in modern history or political theory, although it's still seen as somehow avant-garde. I don't like Arendt, but I find it weird that someone would subscribe to her analysis of evil and yet promote "moral sanctions of the sort that prevents the moral stance against what nazis did and stood for from becoming arguable, relativizable, etc." If you agree with Arendt on Eichmann, you'd be joining me in trying to encourage the crowd of "sanctioners and labelers" into a more nunaced view of the psychology of the Nazi leadership.
However I am rather disappointed that someone who openly advocates ad-hominem wars (or as some guy once said: sanctions and labels) upon their opponents would not rise to stature of a Deborah Lipstadt, and start throwing categorical accusations all over the place. I guess the thinkers of our generation are not destined to be the preachers.
On November 13 2012 07:14 mijagi182 wrote: hmm Christians worse than Hitler and his nazists - this Bible book must be a real hatefest compared to Mein Kampf! Should give it a read :D!
gosh could people be more hateful and delusional...
Well actually the Bible is pretty bad....
Historically speaking, they've done comparable things as well.
On November 13 2012 04:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:go ron paul etc because he cares for us
Couldn't really have put it better, politicians in this country try so very, very hard to look like they can connect with the populace and fail just as hard. If they put as much effort into actually giving a fuck who knows what they could achieve...
it's not only politicians who see fringe parties as fringe.
On November 13 2012 04:49 farvacola wrote:
On November 13 2012 04:41 MoltkeWarding wrote:
On November 13 2012 03:28 schaf wrote: I think in Germany the whole WW2 education backfired a bit. I agree it has to be done and it's good that we get it in school a lot. But when I was growing up (mid 20s now), it felt like being German is actually a bad thing. You get constantly confronted with the horros and of the past and their guilt. My parents were not a particular help in that regard either as they were heavily influenced by the hippie movement. So, if you grow up in that environment every identification with your nation is basically taken from you (might seem a bit extreme, but with me that was the case) and if you want to be a non-conformist or a rebel in school, you look for things that are 'forbidden'.
The NPD is a joke. But they actually have a good strategy. They do offers for young people in areas where there is nothing else, do free jurisdictional advice for unemployed people, do community festivals - and the people buy it. It works.
All in all, I wouldn't call all followers of the NPD as Neo-Nazis.
And there are countries who have a much more severe problem with this, for example Russia (yes!):
When I first visited Berlin several years ago, I stood under the Brandenburger Tor, with a plaque detailing the glorious events of March 1848, supposed to remind us of the best political traditions of Germany's ancestors, in contrast to 1870 and 1933. The plaque commemorated Germany's first liberal-democrats, how they rose up for their rights against an authoritarian regime, how they for a wrinkle in time seized the destiny of the nation and seemed to propel it to a hopeful future.
This is the kind of dogma, half naive, half ridiculous, which is being commonly propagated as "History" in Germany today, in classrooms, media and the popular imagination. The National Assembly which assembled in Frankfurt in 1848 eventually perished under the duress of its own national radicalism, and was forced to prostitute itself out to Frederick William IV, who wound up protecting his "democrats" from the people, but rightly refused to pick his crown up from the gutter. No one today will teach 1848 as an object lesson in the failures of historical German liberalism and constitutionalism, an episode whose multifaceted complexities, by the way, would have been more profoundly understood under the classical curricula of such authoritarian regimes as Bismarck's Prussia or Hitler's National Socialist Germany than by the historically tone-deaf people of today.
It is being trumpeted as a milestone event in the progress of Germany because national curriculum of self-censorship has practically eradicated all other political achievements from German memory. It has painted the sweep of Germany with a broad brush and, while subscribing to the Sonderweg theory that all of Germany's history must be read under the dim shadow of the Third Reich, occasionally pretends to promote Germany's Western legacy by citing and mis-citing such episodes as the March Revolution or Operation Walküre. This kind of post ex-facto ideological manipulation exists all over the place. The German Biedermeier is more properly the teleological Vormärz, the War Credits vote of the SPD in 1914 is now seen as an departure from political norms in German history, rather than its conformity to it.
This is all perhaps only ephemerally relevant to the issue at hand. Looking at the OP, however, and reading the report by the Friederich-Ebert-Stiftung, it's obvious that some things are being misrepresented. In the Spiegel-polls, the NDP does not command enough support to enter any State parliament in Germany apart from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where the polls show them at 6%. The Survey of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung has a list of questions so leading, that sometimes an answer which reveals a discerning historical understanding will be registered ideologically as “Rechtsextrem”
i.e.
Question 1:
Im nationalen Interesse ist unter bestimmten Umständen eine Diktatur die bessere Staatsform
Quite apart from the fact that this question betrays a lack of understanding as to what Dictatorship is, a classical scholar who admires Sulla might agree to this statement, and be labelled an extremist. The leading clause is the stipulation “unter bestimmten Umständen,” which vastly inflates the number of people who will be labelled inaccurately.
Question 2:
Ohne Judenvernichtung würde man Hitler heute als großen Staatsmann ansehen.
The leading aspect of this question is raised by its very hypothetical nature. You might as well ask if Hitler behaved as Mother Theresa, would he be seen as a saint today? The question is deliberately drawing on the great Hitler-biographer Joachim Fest's assertion in the introduction of his 1974 biography: Shall we call him great?
Fest asserted in his biograhpy that had Hitler died in 1938, he would have gone down in history as the greatest of German statesmen, surpassing Bismarck. These are debatable, but not trivial postulations. Yet under the consideration of the F-E-Stiftung, a lifelong bourgeois conservative like Fest would have been labelled an extremist.
The list goes on and on, deducing folly from folly. Finally all this “information” is reduced to a number ready for publication. After a long, exhaustive, methodological study, the final results conclude that the percentage of people holding extreme-right attitudes in Germany have grown from 6.6 percent to 15.8 percent. People are shocked. New resolutions are made from the left to accelerate the social and mental terraforming of the nation. We have to make German history even more mendacious and crude. We have to educate people better. We have to address socio-economic inequality.
Call me old-fashioned, but I have a better thermometer of measuring the presence of extremism in modern life. I go on the internet and see which people are going into a crazed frenzy calling everything else extreme.
This post was a highly enjoyable read, I recommend everyone read this before thinking too hard on the "evidence" presented in the OP.
disagree. the more 'thoughtful' the more pernicious when it comes to a defense of reactionary thinking. on a tactical level there may be an argument of turning to a more content based examination of the ideas and histories, rather than using sanctions and labels. however, at the same time the shadow of those ideas and histories is quite concrete no matter which approach.
for people who think it's okay, or even glorious, the examination has already been done and they are overruled. they should be condemned with pleasure, and that's all.
Shadows are not concrete. And there is always the most compelling argument of all for having the full picture of history. Sanctions and labels are simply a way to make the shadow you prefer as "concrete" as possible, with regard for the truth being a secondary concern if a concern at all.
Yes, thoughtful criticisms are more dangerous to an interpretation or opinion than those that are not, I don't see what your point is besides saying that what you think is so true and right that people should just turn their brains off and enjoy the sanctions and labels they're being fed.
shadows is the word because it was used in a scary scary sense to trivialize concrete history. the shadow of the third reich, for instance, is quite concrete.
there is no shortage of factual determination of the issue. there is however a distinct need for moral sanctions of the sort that prevents the moral stance against what nazis did and stood for from becoming arguable, relativizable, etc.
The real absurdity of democratic fanaticism is that they are always pretending that what's unpopular is too dangerously popular, and what's popular is lamentably unpopular. There's a kind of ethical self-satisfaction in the knowledge that you are an advocate of something that needs to be said, and yet the only people to whom you say them are ones who already agree with you. What we need is the easy moral satisfaction of being right without the hard work of learning.
In other words, if oneofthem had lived in the Third Reich, he would have understood all about the predatory innuendo of the Jewish press, and lamented the lack of foresight in his fellow citizens in spotting out the Jewish danger. Never mind whether or not he knew anything about Jews, their culture, history or theology.
For some reason people nowadays are always imagining themselves to be mentally ahead of the curve while they're just straggling along.
it was never about what is popular or unpopular, to represent 'democratic fanaticism' whatever that means as simply reverse hipsterism is to badly miss the point. the worry is always about the moral deficiency in society which is repeated and emphasized after the war (though somehow not applying to apartheid regimes or israel until later).
read your arendt or something. if you ever read anything in the 19th century and beyond.
Yeah, Arendt is now required reading for most people involved in modern history or political theory, although it's still seen as somehow avant-garde. I don't like Arendt, but I find it weird that someone would subscribe to her analysis of evil and yet promote "moral sanctions of the sort that prevents the moral stance against what nazis did and stood for from becoming arguable, relativizable, etc." If you agree with Arendt on Eichmann, you'd be joining me in trying to encourage the crowd of "sanctioners and labelers" into a more nunaced view of the psychology of the Nazi leadership.
However I am rather disappointed that someone who openly advocates ad-hominem wars (or as some guy once said: sanctions and labels) upon their opponents would not rise to stature of a Deborah Lipstadt, and start throwing categorical accusations all over the place. I guess the thinkers of our generation are not destined to be the preachers.
why would i do that. i have pretty sophisticated stuff that's more along the lines of performative action theory and truly avant garde shit. but anyway yea i don't like arendt either particularly if she liked heidegger
On November 13 2012 00:36 BluePanther wrote: For all the comments about how America is too far right politically, Europe always has this problem and we never really do.
That is because nazis are not really that much to the right. They just got placed there as they hated communists and vice versa. They were/are economically much to the left of anything in American mainstream politics. Even in social area they were/are not really further to the right of big parts of Republican party. Plus it is not like US does not have its similar number of similar crazies.
On November 13 2012 07:14 mijagi182 wrote: hmm Christians worse than Hitler and his nazists - this Bible book must be a real hatefest compared to Mein Kampf! Should give it a read :D!
gosh could people be more hateful and delusional...
Well actually the Bible is pretty bad....
Historically speaking, they've done comparable things as well.
the bible is quite hard to read imho, but Mein Kampf is just written torture
On November 13 2012 00:36 BluePanther wrote: For all the comments about how America is too far right politically, Europe always has this problem and we never really do.
That is because nazis are not really that much to the right. They just got placed there as they hated communists and vice versa. They were/are economically much to the left of anything in American mainstream politics. Even in social area they were/are not really further to the right of big parts of Republican party. Plus it is not like US does not have its similar number of similar crazies.
Also the two party system of USA means that fringe/small/extreme parties never get a seat anywhere.
the article you posted is kinda dubios i have to say. It say that in east germany 92,1% are pro democratic while 15,8% have a far right-wing world view. So 7,9% are pro democratic while they have a right wing world view? Kinda strange tbh. Also as a fellow german you might remember that compared to 8+ years ago the nazi movement is pretty much meaningless now (at least political speaking - there may be local problems tho). So overall I'm pretty suprised by this study. Looks to be quite sensational but you should always have an eye for stuff like that i guess.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
Past history of conflicts? You should try a little closer to home if you want a real history of conflicts.
Edit: And before accepting the unification the allies wanted a clear declaration that Germany stays in the nato and doesnt become a demilitarized neutral state. From wiki: In December 1989, the administration of President George H. W. Bush made a united Germany's continued NATO membership a requirement for supporting reunification. Kohl agreed, although less than 20% of West Germans supported remaining within NATO
closer to home? do tell.
Nato you post - why Germany as part of Nato? So the rest of Nato can keep eyes on Germany so if need be, Nato can keep Germany under its thumb like a bug.
The problem is your statements are completely ignorant. Germany is much further from being ruled by some extremists than US is. Germany has no way of any military action against its neighbours. You know that they have two nuclear powers just around the corner. And Germany is not nuclear power. Their military spending is pitiful compared to other countries. Plus allies pretty much demanded remilitarization from Germany, no the other way around. Also you seem to have missed last 50 years of history, maybe you should educate yourself before you start your knee-jerk reactions.
I strongly disagree with OPs claim that the average German has a "thorough understanding" of nazism and is well educated about it. Sure, children get preached to all the time about how nazis are bad, mkay, but that doesn't have a lot to do with understanding and education. I learned about 90 percent of what I really know about it in self-education. School teaches people about nazism like shocker images on packs of cigarettes teach you about smoking and health. Both very much have a point, but the efficacy of this approach and the knowledge it yields is very limited.
Second, it is a widely shared (also by the OP) belief that education is the antidote to extremism. That belief's basis in fact, i.e. social-psychological research, memory research, attitude psychology etc. is very poor. There is a relationship between education and fanaticism, but it is very far from being as strong and automatic as people believe. Many of the leading and mid-tier nazi personnel were academics.
but this is really fucked up... any theories about what's causing it?
As always economic issues. Specifically instability in people's lives, more than actual wealth/poverty. That is the key characteristic of human psychology. That is why well designed social nets and other social programs that maintain stability of people's lives are so important. Without them extremists have much easier way to power. Also stability of the state itself of course. Just see Greece as to what happens when state starts to limit fulfilling of its stabilizing functions. Germany on the other hand is pretty much ok, some number of nationalists and racist is pretty much inevitable everywhere, especially in economic downturn.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
but this is really fucked up... any theories about what's causing it?
As always economic issues. Specifically instability in people's lives, more than actual wealth/poverty. That is the key characteristic of human psychology. That is why well designed social nets and other social programs that maintain stability of people's lives are so important. Without them extremists have much easier way to power. Also stability of the state itself of course. Just see Greece as to what happens when state starts to limit fulfilling of its stabilizing functions. Germany on the other hand is pretty much ok, some number of nationalists and racist is pretty much inevitable everywhere, especially in economic downturn.
Well at least someone came out with the truth. Welfare programs aren't meant to help the people they are supposed inasmuch as make them docile and obedient. Never mind the fact, that Welfare programs contribute significantly to economic malaise, since they encourage anti-economic behaviors (we're not even talking the immorality of stealing from one person to give to another, yet).
I also would yield to the fact that from 1776 to roughly the 1930s we didn't have much if any Welfare programs in the U.S. by the Government. Most people were members of mutual Aid-Societies and other assistance organizations which fulfill the actual function of HELPING the folks who need it most, instead of creating docile, impotent, serfs that State-Welfarism does. You better vote for me, or ELSE!
As H.L. Mencken observed:
“Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.”
PS: Anything other than status-quo is in fact, not necessarily 'extremist'. What a farce.
I have the feeling some of the ppl here are in denial.
The FES is a well known foundation that is very respected in the science-world. It's not propaganda and its not a Super-Pac. One of the reasons this foundation get money from the government is duo to the fact that they are objective when it comes to their researches. So no "left-wing blabla"!!!
They make this report every year and they noticed that the number of ppl having negative thoughts about immigrants and jews have gone up. These are numbers, but they are indicating that extreme right views become more accepted in the middle of the german society. Not more, not less. Germany isnt a nazi-country because of this, but its also nothing to ignore.
On November 13 2012 07:40 FrogOfWar wrote: "Uprising" is very much the wrong term.
I strongly disagree with OPs claim that the average German has a "thorough understanding" of nazism and is well educated about it. Sure, children get preached to all the time about how nazis are bad, mkay, but that doesn't have a lot to do with understanding and education. I learned about 90 percent of what I really know about it in self-education. School teaches people about nazism like shocker images on packs of cigarettes teach you about smoking and health. Both very much have a point, but the efficacy of this approach and the knowledge it yields is very limited.
Second, it is a widely shared (also by the OP) belief that education is the antidote to extremism. That belief's basis in fact, i.e. social-psychological research, memory research, attitude psychology etc. is very poor. There is a relationship between education and fanaticism, but it is very far from being as strong and automatic as people believe. Many of the leading and mid-tier nazi personnel were academics.
Extremism is a rather mobile concept, it is more or less political jargon for anti-establishment or non-comformist politics. The Pilgrim fathers would have been extremists in England, while Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson would have been extremists in Massachusetts. The Social Democrats and Zentrum were the extremists in Bismarck's Germany, while by 1914 they became mass political parties.
Now the German constitution has inherent checks against extremism, and sought to stabilise politics in the Middle. It has done a remarkably successful job of it in the last 70 years. The spiritual ancestor of the NDP, the DP was a mainstream party, largely representing the interests of ex-veterans in Germany. It became defunct in the 1960's. The Social Democratic Party too, abandoned Marxism after the Godesberger Programme and drew towards the centre. In other words, since 1949 the political spectrum in German politics had not only stabilised, but contracted. There are five parties in Germany today in parliament, but the differences between them, possibly apart from the Linke, are minute in historical terms.
What would have been normal even in 1960 is now straddling the zones of extremism in our new definition of it. The Germans, being what they are, are not making too much noise about meeting somewhere in that ubiquitous grey zone. As Kaiser Wilhelm used to say before the war: there will be no revolution in Germany, because in Germany revolutions are strictly forbidden.
but this is really fucked up... any theories about what's causing it?
As always economic issues. Specifically instability in people's lives, more than actual wealth/poverty. That is the key characteristic of human psychology. That is why well designed social nets and other social programs that maintain stability of people's lives are so important. Without them extremists have much easier way to power. Also stability of the state itself of course. Just see Greece as to what happens when state starts to limit fulfilling of its stabilizing functions. Germany on the other hand is pretty much ok, some number of nationalists and racist is pretty much inevitable everywhere, especially in economic downturn.
Well at least someone came out with the truth. Welfare programs aren't meant to help the people they are supposed inasmuch as make them docile and obedient. Never mind the fact, that Welfare programs contribute significantly to economic malaise, since they encourage anti-economic behaviors (we're not even talking the immorality of stealing from one person to give to another, yet).
I also would yield to the fact that from 1776 to roughly the 1930s we didn't have much if any Welfare programs in the U.S. by the Government. Most people were members of mutual Aid-Societies and other assistance organizations which fulfill the actual function of HELPING the folks who need it most, instead of creating docile, impotent, serfs that State-Welfarism does. You better vote for me, or ELSE!
“Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.”
Yes I know, in your lala-imaginary-land taxes are stealing and empirical reality is less important than ideology. Welfare programs are supposed to help people and by doing so prevent people from becoming desperate enough to start supporting extremists and becoming violent. Both goals are important. Plus there is quite a big body of evidence that well designed social programs are actually very important for economic activity and growth. Welfare states came to be when people had the freedom you price so highly, but willingly and violently demanded it be exchanged for decent and stable life. We all know how idyllic 1776-1930 was in either US or Europe.
On November 13 2012 07:55 esperanto wrote: I have the feeling some of the ppl here are in denial.
The FES is a well known foundation that is very respected in the science-world. It's not propaganda and its not a Super-Pac. One of the reasons this foundation get money from the government is duo to the fact that they are objective when it comes to their researches. So no "left-wing blabla"!!!
They make this report every year and they noticed that the number of ppl having negative thoughts about immigrants and jews have gone up. These are numbers, but they are indicating that extreme right views become more accepted in the middle of the german society. Not more, not less. Germany isnt a nazi-country because of this, but its also nothing to ignore.
Nah seriously get your facts straight, dear god. The OP suggests nearly 10% of the voting population to be straight up nazis. You know the stuff with admiring the Third Reich, social darwinism, expanding the country, gas chambers and stuff. I wonder where all these people are as they hardly can be seen. Right wing nuts mobilize around 200 people for their demonstrations in reality. When did some hundred loons actually became 10% of the voting population. If you somehow think nazi thinking actually made it to the middle of society, you are the one in denial, it is really as simple as that.
And no the Stiftung is not respected in the science world. You will virtually never find articles published in scientific journals, simply because much of its work is influenced by political dogma. This goes for all these Stiftungen by the way.
On November 13 2012 07:55 esperanto wrote: I have the feeling some of the ppl here are in denial.
The FES is a well known foundation that is very respected in the science-world. It's not propaganda and its not a Super-Pac. One of the reasons this foundation get money from the government is duo to the fact that they are objective when it comes to their researches. So no "left-wing blabla"!!!
They make this report every year and they noticed that the number of ppl having negative thoughts about immigrants and jews have gone up. These are numbers, but they are indicating that extreme right views become more accepted in the middle of the german society. Not more, not less. Germany isnt a nazi-country because of this, but its also nothing to ignore.
From the OP, people might get the impression that the FES claims 9 percent of Germans would approve of national socialism. That would be wrong. If you ask people if they approve of national socialism, I doubt you'd get 1 percent approval, because that question would trigger all alarms. Rather, these studies ask for attitudes, like do you think it would be best to have a strong leader, do you think foreigners tend to exploit us, do you think Germany is superior to other countries and the like. And that's what's dangerous about it. These attitudes flourish under the surface in otherwise "normal" people, they often aren't immediately visible, and many people with extreme right-wing attitudes don't even see themselves as exteme right-wingers. (One indication is if someone regards mainstream media as far-left.)
On November 13 2012 07:55 esperanto wrote: I have the feeling some of the ppl here are in denial.
The FES is a well known foundation that is very respected in the science-world. It's not propaganda and its not a Super-Pac. One of the reasons this foundation get money from the government is duo to the fact that they are objective when it comes to their researches. So no "left-wing blabla"!!!
They make this report every year and they noticed that the number of ppl having negative thoughts about immigrants and jews have gone up. These are numbers, but they are indicating that extreme right views become more accepted in the middle of the german society. Not more, not less. Germany isnt a nazi-country because of this, but its also nothing to ignore.
Nah seriously get your facts straight, dear god. The OP suggests nearly 10% of the voting population to be straight up nazis. You know the stuff with admiring the Third Reich, social darwinism, expanding the country, gas chambers and stuff. I wonder where all these people are as they hardly can be seen. Right wing nuts mobilize around 200 people for their demonstrations in reality. When did some hundred loons actually became 10% of the voting population. If you somehow think nazi thinking actually made it to the middle of society, you are the one in denial, it is really as simple as that.
And no the Stiftung is not respected in the science world. You will virtually never find articles published in scientific journals, simply because much of its work is influenced by political dogma. This goes for all these Stiftungen by the way.
Lol, see? No, right-wing extremism does not imply straight-out admiring the third reich and gas chambers. Not at all. OP should have made that clear.
this discussion is pointless. sorry, but its just stupid to claim that 9% of all germans are nazis when we have less than 2% voting for right-wing parties.
Seriously the title of this needs to be changed by either op or mods. Providing additonal information in the OP should be done too. People actually only ready the first post/site and actually take this fox news level exaggeration serious as reflected in the replies that go up to suggesting demilitarizing germany (wtf???).
OP should be ashamed to spread such half truths that make us look way worse than we are, as a german, i feel ashamed of how you make us look.
On November 13 2012 07:55 esperanto wrote: I have the feeling some of the ppl here are in denial.
The FES is a well known foundation that is very respected in the science-world. It's not propaganda and its not a Super-Pac. One of the reasons this foundation get money from the government is duo to the fact that they are objective when it comes to their researches. So no "left-wing blabla"!!!
I have the feeling you are in more than denial or you dont live in germany. FES is a good foundation generally, ive even done volunteer work for them. But this is downright nothing short of fearmongering. about 10 % sympathise with NPD? I want you to go outside now and start asking people, you wont get 9 out of a 100 on an average, straight out bullshit.
Having read through most of questions, I honestly believe that with these questions and these criteria for defining nazis the german results are not far from what even the most open-minded societies/states in this world would achieve.
If interest exists, i might translate some -what I think are- key points for this, but I dont have time for this today.
On November 13 2012 08:11 cari-kira wrote: this discussion is pointless. sorry, but its just stupid to claim that 9% of all germans are nazis when we have less than 2% voting for right-wing parties.
Sorry, but it's just stupid to dismiss a claim without even understanding what is being claimed. Having extreme right-wing attitudes != being a Nazi.
On November 13 2012 08:14 Mafe wrote: Having read through most of questions, I honestly believe that with these questions and these criteria for defining nazis the german results are not far from what even the most open-minded societies/states in this world would achieve.
Of course, they do. Germany doesn't have more right-wingers than other comparable countries.
On November 13 2012 07:55 esperanto wrote: I have the feeling some of the ppl here are in denial.
The FES is a well known foundation that is very respected in the science-world. It's not propaganda and its not a Super-Pac. One of the reasons this foundation get money from the government is duo to the fact that they are objective when it comes to their researches. So no "left-wing blabla"!!!
They make this report every year and they noticed that the number of ppl having negative thoughts about immigrants and jews have gone up. These are numbers, but they are indicating that extreme right views become more accepted in the middle of the german society. Not more, not less. Germany isnt a nazi-country because of this, but its also nothing to ignore.
Nah seriously get your facts straight, dear god. The OP suggests nearly 10% of the voting population to be straight up nazis. You know the stuff with admiring the Third Reich, social darwinism, expanding the country, gas chambers and stuff. I wonder where all these people are as they hardly can be seen. Right wing nuts mobilize around 200 people for their demonstrations in reality. When did some hundred loons actually became 10% of the voting population. If you somehow think nazi thinking actually made it to the middle of society, you are the one in denial, it is really as simple as that.
And no the Stiftung is not respected in the science world. You will virtually never find articles published in scientific journals, simply because much of its work is influenced by political dogma. This goes for all these Stiftungen by the way.
Lol, see? No, right-wing extremism does not imply straight-out admiring the third reich and gas chambers. Not at all. OP should have made that clear.
I see you did not bother to look at the actual study in question. Yes it actually covers the question if you would support a rightwing dictatorship. Yes it covers the questions like Antisemitism and social darwinism. Such questions are basically the international go-to guide in rightwing extremism research. Support for these questions is actually around 3% in this respective study and not 9, how the OP actually implies. Funny ideas some people might actually come up with to describe right wing extremism (like linking chauvinism to rightwing extremism, like actually done in this study wtf??) are pretty irrelevant in regard of the international scientific consense.
On November 13 2012 08:13 freewareplayer wrote: Seriously the title of this needs to be changed by either op or mods. Providing additonal information in the OP should be done too. People actually only ready the first post/site and actually take this fox news level exaggeration serious as reflected in the replies that go up to suggesting demilitarizing germany (wtf???).
OP should be ashamed to spread such half truths that make us look way worse than we are, as a german, i feel ashamed of how you make us look.
On November 13 2012 07:55 esperanto wrote: I have the feeling some of the ppl here are in denial.
The FES is a well known foundation that is very respected in the science-world. It's not propaganda and its not a Super-Pac. One of the reasons this foundation get money from the government is duo to the fact that they are objective when it comes to their researches. So no "left-wing blabla"!!!
I have the feeling you are in more than denial or you dont live in germany. FES is a good foundation generally, ive even done volunteer work for them. But this is downright nothing short of fearmongering. about 10 % sympathise with NPD? I want you to go outside now and start asking people, you wont get 9 out of a 100 on an average, straight out bullshit.
that are numbers, and compared to all the right parties in other countries in europe, thats LOW, now stop spreading bullshit about a "NAZI UPRISING".
The FES paper does not in any way say that 10% would support the NPD. The paper only says that according to their research the number of ppl in germany with extreme right-wing views about immigrants and jews has gone up from 8.2% (2010) to 9%. Of course the OP is overreacting here and the title could be changed.
But I find the fact that right wing views have become more accepted in germany quite disturbing and I dont want to ignore this. And of course you can see this in everydays life, especially when even books from Sarrazin are always a #1 bestseller. Extreme right-wing crime has also gone up 2,2% from 2011.
On November 13 2012 08:13 freewareplayer wrote: Seriously the title of this needs to be changed by either op or mods. Providing additonal information in the OP should be done too. People actually only ready the first post/site and actually take this fox news level exaggeration serious as reflected in the replies that go up to suggesting demilitarizing germany (wtf???).
OP should be ashamed to spread such half truths that make us look way worse than we are, as a german, i feel ashamed of how you make us look.
On November 13 2012 07:55 esperanto wrote: I have the feeling some of the ppl here are in denial.
The FES is a well known foundation that is very respected in the science-world. It's not propaganda and its not a Super-Pac. One of the reasons this foundation get money from the government is duo to the fact that they are objective when it comes to their researches. So no "left-wing blabla"!!!
I have the feeling you are in more than denial or you dont live in germany. FES is a good foundation generally, ive even done volunteer work for them. But this is downright nothing short of fearmongering. about 10 % sympathise with NPD? I want you to go outside now and start asking people, you wont get 9 out of a 100 on an average, straight out bullshit.
that are numbers, and compared to all the right parties in other countries in europe, thats LOW, now stop spreading bullshit about a "NAZI UPRISING".
The FES paper does not in any way say that 10% would support the NPD. The paper only says that according to their research the number of ppl in germany with extreme right-wing views about immigrants and jews has gone up from 8.2% (2010) to 9%. Of course the OP is overreacting here and the title could be changed.
"the title could be changed" lol
Imagine your not actually from germany, and theres a topic named " Nazi uprising in present Germany" seriously what the actual fuck? I am honestly outraged at this, dont get what that dude was thinking when he came up with that title, unless hes trolling, nevermind the more than dodgy content.
And no 9 % of people do not have "extreme right-wing views" someone who is EXTREME and RIGHT, could very well be seen as having Sympathy for the NPD, if not, then probably only cause the NPD is not extreme enough for them. Check AngryMags post a few post back to check some of the stuff thats included in the survey, or better, actually read the items in it.
To you as well, go out on the streets tomorrow, and go ask people about " EXTREME right views", if you get 9 / 100 with that, im actually delivering a cookie to your doorstep.
The OP is ridiculous, sounds like he got most of his information from Antifa-leaflets and now he found a Spiegel article, which sadly some people believe is actually worthwhile to read; it's a tabloid with a good reputation for whatever reason.
Neonazis and other extremist ideas become popular among stupid and unemployed people, preferably young and impressionable. Now all you have to do is check how education and (youth-)unemployment are doing in the areas where Nazis get more than 1% of votes, then it becomes obvious that it's really only bad in some areas and even there less than 9% are that stupid.
On November 13 2012 07:14 mijagi182 wrote: hmm Christians worse than Hitler and his nazists - this Bible book must be a real hatefest compared to Mein Kampf! Should give it a read :D!
gosh could people be more hateful and delusional...
Actually.... ya, the bible has more hate than Mein Kampf, hate to break it to you.
i dont think op is trolling, i think he is just young. young people tend to become fanatics. fanatic nazi hunter, fanatic animal rights activist, [insert fanatic]. And some even stay in this state when they get older.. the FES (which is of course NOT accepted by international science bodys, even if claimed here) on the other hand uses these people to get attention for their new books and studies.
everybody who ever made a statistic or a survey knows, that you will never get the same numbers when doing such a thing twice. NEVER. and a difference of 0.8 percent to their last years survey indicates an "uprising of nazis" in germany"? now im really shocked. shocked that people try to manipulate me with fake threads created on teamliquid.
On November 13 2012 08:13 freewareplayer wrote: Seriously the title of this needs to be changed by either op or mods. Providing additonal information in the OP should be done too. People actually only ready the first post/site and actually take this fox news level exaggeration serious as reflected in the replies that go up to suggesting demilitarizing germany (wtf???).
OP should be ashamed to spread such half truths that make us look way worse than we are, as a german, i feel ashamed of how you make us look.
On November 13 2012 07:55 esperanto wrote: I have the feeling some of the ppl here are in denial.
The FES is a well known foundation that is very respected in the science-world. It's not propaganda and its not a Super-Pac. One of the reasons this foundation get money from the government is duo to the fact that they are objective when it comes to their researches. So no "left-wing blabla"!!!
I have the feeling you are in more than denial or you dont live in germany. FES is a good foundation generally, ive even done volunteer work for them. But this is downright nothing short of fearmongering. about 10 % sympathise with NPD? I want you to go outside now and start asking people, you wont get 9 out of a 100 on an average, straight out bullshit.
that are numbers, and compared to all the right parties in other countries in europe, thats LOW, now stop spreading bullshit about a "NAZI UPRISING".
The FES paper does not in any way say that 10% would support the NPD. The paper only says that according to their research the number of ppl in germany with extreme right-wing views about immigrants and jews has gone up from 8.2% (2010) to 9%. Of course the OP is overreacting here and the title could be changed.
"the title could be changed" lol
Imagine your not actually from germany, and theres a topic named " Nazi uprising in present Germany" seriously what the actual fuck? I am honestly outraged at this, dont get what that dude was thinking when he came up with that title, unless hes trolling, nevermind the more than dodgy content.
And no 9 % of people do not have "extreme right-wing views" someone who is EXTREME and RIGHT, could very well be seen as having Sympathy for the NPD, if not, then probably only cause the NPD is not extreme enough for them. Check AngryMags post a few post back to check some of the stuff thats included in the survey, or better, actually read the items in it.
To you as well, go out on the streets tomorrow, and go ask people about " EXTREME right views", if you get 9 / 100 with that, im actually delivering a cookie to your doorstep.
Ok you are right, I take back the word "extreme" and replace it with "racist/fascist". But here are the raw numbers and they just dont lie (because they are not up for interpretation): + Show Spoiler +
Still, doesnt it worry you that the research actually shows an increasing number? Dont you worry that right-wing brutality has gone up (and not just since NSU)? So why is your only concern right now to criticise the op, me or the study? Thats the behavior of "denial" I am talking about.
On November 13 2012 08:13 freewareplayer wrote: Seriously the title of this needs to be changed by either op or mods. Providing additonal information in the OP should be done too. People actually only ready the first post/site and actually take this fox news level exaggeration serious as reflected in the replies that go up to suggesting demilitarizing germany (wtf???).
OP should be ashamed to spread such half truths that make us look way worse than we are, as a german, i feel ashamed of how you make us look.
On November 13 2012 07:55 esperanto wrote: I have the feeling some of the ppl here are in denial.
The FES is a well known foundation that is very respected in the science-world. It's not propaganda and its not a Super-Pac. One of the reasons this foundation get money from the government is duo to the fact that they are objective when it comes to their researches. So no "left-wing blabla"!!!
I have the feeling you are in more than denial or you dont live in germany. FES is a good foundation generally, ive even done volunteer work for them. But this is downright nothing short of fearmongering. about 10 % sympathise with NPD? I want you to go outside now and start asking people, you wont get 9 out of a 100 on an average, straight out bullshit.
that are numbers, and compared to all the right parties in other countries in europe, thats LOW, now stop spreading bullshit about a "NAZI UPRISING".
The FES paper does not in any way say that 10% would support the NPD. The paper only says that according to their research the number of ppl in germany with extreme right-wing views about immigrants and jews has gone up from 8.2% (2010) to 9%. Of course the OP is overreacting here and the title could be changed.
"the title could be changed" lol
Imagine your not actually from germany, and theres a topic named " Nazi uprising in present Germany" seriously what the actual fuck? I am honestly outraged at this, dont get what that dude was thinking when he came up with that title, unless hes trolling, nevermind the more than dodgy content.
And no 9 % of people do not have "extreme right-wing views" someone who is EXTREME and RIGHT, could very well be seen as having Sympathy for the NPD, if not, then probably only cause the NPD is not extreme enough for them. Check AngryMags post a few post back to check some of the stuff thats included in the survey, or better, actually read the items in it.
To you as well, go out on the streets tomorrow, and go ask people about " EXTREME right views", if you get 9 / 100 with that, im actually delivering a cookie to your doorstep.
Ok you are right, I take back the word "extreme" and replace it with "racist/fascist". But here are the raw numbers and they just dont lie (because they are not up for interpretation): + Show Spoiler +
Still, doesnt it worry you that the research actually shows an increasing number? Dont you worry that right-wing brutality has gone up (and not just since NSU)? So why is your only concern right now to criticise the op, me or the study? Thats the behavior of "denial" I am talking about.
Well when I read the title, I was really interested, because I thought WW3 was coming, and I needed to retreat to my bunker in Montana to survive the nuclear holocaust that was incoming. Then I realized that OP was a moron, and doesn't know how to properly describe the situation he wanted to express his opinion on. This is like saying a lgbt rights parade where the governor attends as a Gay Uprising captures Governor.
Guess this is the right timing to post this article about Facebook banning Golden Dawn(Popular Greek Neo-nazi's). Funny how people claim to believe in Freedom of speech.......until.....you know...... they don't like what they hear, then it's A-Alright
Greece’s neofascist Golden Dawn party on Monday slammed a decision by Facebook to block the accounts of several of its members and deputies, lashing out at what it said was an “act of censorship” and a “relentless attack against nationalist users.”
The California-based networking website allegedly blocked the profiles after deeming that they violated terms of use on violence and racism. It also deleted the web pages of Golden Dawn members and others who had posted Nazi symbols. The party, which has 18 seats in Parliament, has reportedly filed a complaint with Greece’s electronic crimes unit.
Meanwhile, Greece’s primary school teachers’ federation (DOE) on Monday condemned attempts by members of Golden Dawn to interfere with the commemoration of the October 28 anniversary – when Greeks celebrate the 1940 rejection of an Italian ultimatum – at a kindergarten and primary school on the Ionian island of Lefkada. Several children of Albanian descent allegedly drew the Albanian flag during a class on multiculturalism. The drawings went on display for the October 28 celebration.
The move irked several Greek parents, who notified Golden Dawn officials on the island. The latter accused the teacher of being unpatriotic.
In a statement Monday, DOE defended the teacher, saying that “the Greek school has no space for self-styled guardians of all that is sacred and holy in this nation.”
Recent reports have suggested that members of Golden Dawn aim to interfere with upcoming school commemorations of the 1973 Athens Polytechnic student uprising against the military dictatorship on November 17.
p.s. I'm not a supporter of the Neo-nazi's but I also hate hypocrites.
And no 9 % of people do not have "extreme right-wing views" someone who is EXTREME and RIGHT, could very well be seen as having Sympathy for the NPD, if not, then probably only cause the NPD is not extreme enough for them. Check AngryMags post a few post back to check some of the stuff thats included in the survey, or better, actually read the items in it.
Actually rather vague questions, nothing in this questionaire is inherently more than right wing.
On November 13 2012 09:14 esperanto wrote:
Ok you are right, I take back the word "extreme" and replace it with "racist/fascist". But here are the raw numbers and they just dont lie (because they are not up for interpretation):
Welcome to social sciences where everything is up to debate, especially on grounds of methodology and questions asked. To be precise, A study with dodgy vague questions does not constitute hard facts. No Questionaire study ever does... To be even more precise while the sample selecetion is explained, the raw numbers of people asked are notmentioned, which is a problem.
Its a function of youth culture in germany to assume everything right of sociaal democrats to be evil, but I hate to break it to you, but an average tory, republican or UMP Voter would have no problem with half of these questions, thats how vague they are asked and how general they are formulated.
In essence ascribing to a predidential system like france(not even US) would make you a sympathizer of authoritarian regimes if you go by the questions asked.
PS: Don´t ask about the requirements for Goverment funding...
From what I've heard about goings on in England and Sweden in particular, there is an "uprising" of anti-immigration nationalists through at least some parts of Europe. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was coming about in Germany as well, where there is probably a similar modern "left-wing" official policy towards immigrants as in those other countries, welcoming them in large numbers and treating them with all the entitlements they could ask for.
Germany also has that terrible history behind them, and unfortunately a lot of youth, I think, who have trouble properly understanding it, because it is mainly presented to them through emotionally charged public education, and guarded via censorship. It is illegal in Germany, for example, to claim publicly that the holocaust didn't happen. Certainly that is revisionist history, but it is not itself an act of violence and everyone should have the political right to be loudly ignorant. Ideas should be fought with ideas, speech with speech, since using the threat of violence to silence your opposition only makes your ideas look weaker, and peaks the interest of those suspicious of power and of popular opinion.
With regard to the need for more open discussions about immigration reform, I think there is a similar problem. Of course anti-immigration views are rooted in racism, and other prejudices, but left-wing people are seldom willing to make the much needed concession that there are problems with immigration, in order to gain more respect in saying that banning it is not the solution. The problem is of course the entitlements, but, strangely enough, even the so-called right wing in Europe does not seem interested in talking about that. That is why you have a rise of nationalism. The idea is to make the collective more exclusive, rather than return rights back down to individuals.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
Past history of conflicts? You should try a little closer to home if you want a real history of conflicts.
Edit: And before accepting the unification the allies wanted a clear declaration that Germany stays in the nato and doesnt become a demilitarized neutral state. From wiki: In December 1989, the administration of President George H. W. Bush made a united Germany's continued NATO membership a requirement for supporting reunification. Kohl agreed, although less than 20% of West Germans supported remaining within NATO
closer to home? do tell.
Nato you post - why Germany as part of Nato? So the rest of Nato can keep eyes on Germany so if need be, Nato can keep Germany under its thumb like a bug.
The problem is your statements are completely ignorant. Germany is much further from being ruled by some extremists than US is. Germany has no way of any military action against its neighbours. You know that they have two nuclear powers just around the corner. And Germany is not nuclear power. Their military spending is pitiful compared to other countries. Plus allies pretty much demanded remilitarization from Germany, no the other way around. Also you seem to have missed last 50 years of history, maybe you should educate yourself before you start your knee-jerk reactions.
Au contrair. You need to do your fact checking.
German military spending, over 40 Billion (B as in Butter). Compare to your nation with a puny less than 2 Billion. Like the Czech would stand a chance if Germany decided to invade, nuclear power or not. What a feeble argument you make, so easily crushed. Read my former post again. Germany spends more than nearly all its direct neighbors. COMBINED. France is the only exception ot the rule and throws the balance out of wack. If Germany wanted to take a few battalions and squadrons, and go for a march through Czech and through Poland then back home, there isnt sweet all those two countries could do about it other than be a bit of a pest with thier meager 2.5 and 9.1 Billion in military spending to Germany's 43B. They'd slow down the German stroll through the park, but not stop it, not even close.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
On November 13 2012 09:51 sekritzzz wrote: Guess this is the right timing to post this article about Facebook banning Golden Dawn(Popular Greek Neo-nazi's). Funny how people claim to believe in Freedom of speech.......until.....you know...... they don't like what they hear, then it's A-Alright
Greece’s neofascist Golden Dawn party on Monday slammed a decision by Facebook to block the accounts of several of its members and deputies, lashing out at what it said was an “act of censorship” and a “relentless attack against nationalist users.”
The California-based networking website allegedly blocked the profiles after deeming that they violated terms of use on violence and racism. It also deleted the web pages of Golden Dawn members and others who had posted Nazi symbols. The party, which has 18 seats in Parliament, has reportedly filed a complaint with Greece’s electronic crimes unit.
Meanwhile, Greece’s primary school teachers’ federation (DOE) on Monday condemned attempts by members of Golden Dawn to interfere with the commemoration of the October 28 anniversary – when Greeks celebrate the 1940 rejection of an Italian ultimatum – at a kindergarten and primary school on the Ionian island of Lefkada. Several children of Albanian descent allegedly drew the Albanian flag during a class on multiculturalism. The drawings went on display for the October 28 celebration.
The move irked several Greek parents, who notified Golden Dawn officials on the island. The latter accused the teacher of being unpatriotic.
In a statement Monday, DOE defended the teacher, saying that “the Greek school has no space for self-styled guardians of all that is sacred and holy in this nation.”
Recent reports have suggested that members of Golden Dawn aim to interfere with upcoming school commemorations of the 1973 Athens Polytechnic student uprising against the military dictatorship on November 17.
p.s. I'm not a supporter of the Neo-nazi's but I also hate hypocrites.
I'm pretty sure you're not a hypocrite if you ban a group that use FB to group up and cause vandalism.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
If you grow up in Germany, you will be thoroughly educated about the Nazi Party. The history of the Third Reich is mandatory part of your historical education and secondary schools frequently have week-long projects to further awareness of the horrors of Hitler's Germany. Chances are, you will at one point visit one of the concentration camps of Buchenwald or Auschwitz and schools go through great lenghts to get jewish orators who have witnessed Nazi Germany first hand. History programs on TV eat up that chapter as well and the Federal Agency for Civic Education offers a plethora of different magazines for free so one can educate oneself even further.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
Well people grow up reading about the horrors of the Soviet Union but they still think they can do better. They believe in centrally planned economies, etc. I doubt the Neo-Nazis are even a fraction of a percent as radical as the Nazi Party under Hitler. They seem like one of those fringe groups that no one takes seriously despite the outcry.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
Except Canada shares a relationship with US that Germany doesn't with its neighbours - especially given the history of wars. Canada and US had like 1 war with bayonets that Canada won or something? lol
On November 13 2012 09:51 sekritzzz wrote: Guess this is the right timing to post this article about Facebook banning Golden Dawn(Popular Greek Neo-nazi's). Funny how people claim to believe in Freedom of speech.......until.....you know...... they don't like what they hear, then it's A-Alright
Greece’s neofascist Golden Dawn party on Monday slammed a decision by Facebook to block the accounts of several of its members and deputies, lashing out at what it said was an “act of censorship” and a “relentless attack against nationalist users.”
The California-based networking website allegedly blocked the profiles after deeming that they violated terms of use on violence and racism. It also deleted the web pages of Golden Dawn members and others who had posted Nazi symbols. The party, which has 18 seats in Parliament, has reportedly filed a complaint with Greece’s electronic crimes unit.
Meanwhile, Greece’s primary school teachers’ federation (DOE) on Monday condemned attempts by members of Golden Dawn to interfere with the commemoration of the October 28 anniversary – when Greeks celebrate the 1940 rejection of an Italian ultimatum – at a kindergarten and primary school on the Ionian island of Lefkada. Several children of Albanian descent allegedly drew the Albanian flag during a class on multiculturalism. The drawings went on display for the October 28 celebration.
The move irked several Greek parents, who notified Golden Dawn officials on the island. The latter accused the teacher of being unpatriotic.
In a statement Monday, DOE defended the teacher, saying that “the Greek school has no space for self-styled guardians of all that is sacred and holy in this nation.”
Recent reports have suggested that members of Golden Dawn aim to interfere with upcoming school commemorations of the 1973 Athens Polytechnic student uprising against the military dictatorship on November 17.
p.s. I'm not a supporter of the Neo-nazi's but I also hate hypocrites.
I'm pretty sure you're not a hypocrite if you ban a group that use FB to group up and cause vandalism.
Let him be in his little world. He does not even know what freedom of speech actually means, because he never thought it through.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
Except Canada shares a relationship with US that Germany doesn't with its neighbours - especially given the history of wars. Canada and US had like 1 war with bayonets that Canada won or something? lol
And where's the argument? If the US starts a war with the wrong people, you still have to fight even if you're not the country being invaded?
Btw, germany has actually a good relationship with it's neighbours. Check your facts. Hint: Pew Research Center. Get your head out of the closet and maybe look at the bigger picture, and not just the muppets waving fists at Merkel because somehow she is to blame for their bad economy.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
Im actually just playing devils advocate.
My brother and I were having a good debate the other night about what should have happened to Germany after World War 2 and the happenings of war with that country. We did some fact checking etc etc, and were actually surprised to see how strong a military a country like Germany has, considering its historic past. We were surprised that the deaths of literally millions at the hand of a single country really didn't affect their future since the war, especially since early 1990. I actually played the opposite roll in that argument. But my brother did make some very good points, which are in this thread already. What somewhat put me on the edge decisiviley, was an argument that the current genepool of Germany, is from the populous which survived the war. The people that stood by and watched, doing nothing, as millions of people were exterminated. That actually elected by a massive majority the leadership and future they chose, and the slaugter that followed. That did nothing as the concentration camps within eye sight burned trainedloads of people. These people are the genetic makup which is the current german citizen. As much as I argued around it, it was a standing point which was fact. It happened, there were survivors, and those survivors lived on, procreated, and 2 and 3 generations later is where they are genetically.
Now, I see your post was an attempt to poke at Americans, their war efforts and involvements, etc etc, in an effort to frustrate or infuriate me. You won't get that much pleasure from me. I might be Canadian, and the USA might be my neighbor to the south, but I could care less for them as a general populous, personally speaking.
having open dialogue on the facts of the nazis is not really the issue when you have people focusing on the glorious industrial recovery when that recovery has huge costs. if these people think a couple years of full employment is the primary historical legacy of naziism, clearly we need more factual dialogue!
as far as i know public education on nazi history does not employ distorting information. it is just presented to get people to accept the moral depravity that national-racial politics can bring. it is a value building exercise.
of course, for those who resist such humane values, they will resist this education as indoctrination. but at this point, they are the problem.
this does not apply to those who would rather see everything as cultural aesthetics and pine for the glory days of kings and serfs.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
Im actually just playing devils advocate.
My brother and I were having a good debate the other night about what should have happened to Germany after World War 2 and the happenings of war with that country. We did some fact checking etc etc, and were actually surprised to see how strong a military a country like Germany has, considering its historic past. We were surprised that the deaths of literally millions at the hand of a single country really didn't affect their future since the war, especially since early 1990. I actually played the opposite roll in that argument. But my brother did make some very good points, which are in this thread already. What somewhat put me on the edge decisiviley, was an argument that the current genepool of Germany, is from the populous which survived the war. The people that stood by and watched, doing nothing, as millions of people were exterminated. That actually elected by a massive majority the leadership and future they chose, and the slaugter that followed. That did nothing as the concentration camps within eye sight burned trainedloads of people. These people are the genetic makup which is the current german citizen. As much as I argued around it, it was a standing point which was fact. It happened, there were survivors, and those survivors lived on, procreated, and 2 and 3 generations later is where they are genetically.
Now, I see your post was an attempt to poke at Americans, their war efforts and involvements, etc etc, in an effort to frustrate or infuriate me. You won't get that much pleasure from me. I might be Canadian, and the USA might be my neighbor to the south, but I could care less for them as a general populous, personally speaking.
your ancestors probably did something similar, as did mine. this is not a genetics problem and punitive measures for populations after wars is a demonstrably terrible idea.
I suppose there are people who have walked into nazi-influence, regardless of financial circumstances but, aside from that, I would just say to possible targets of nazi-type influence, not to buy into the ignorant idea that it's the "foreigners" fault, for being "immigrants" that "steal" money. It's just an alibi/distraction. What happens when the states and persons are switched, and any given country could say the same to opposite of said-country-natives. Oh sorry russia, you told us to get out and that immigrants shouldn't work in a country that they didn't live in for a certain amount of time. It's not righteous nor is it moral or principle related. It could be any given country, if they have few jobs, employers have hired persons who are willing to work for less. It's not just "immigrants" who work for less. If there were no immigrants, there would still be people willing to work for little. What can they say then? They would still find something to get angry about and justify killing and violence in general. They are just angry and their poor sense of self-awareness in terms of pride and humility/fairness is what is blinding them and fueling their aggressive abuse toward other men/women. Not to mention everyone is an immigrant. And the idea of immigrant/foreigner vs native born has to end since we populate ONE single space, and last time I heard, we all came from one source, or one person. This is a mix of arrogance, superiority complex, pride, or if you think that's all the same thing, regardless, it's just that. A person can either be a selfish brat or a helper in terms of human relationships and humanity as a whole. And if you think about the implications of what it means that someone will suddenly force all "races", to go "back to their home land", according to color/background, and to stay there, think about the disproportionate population/land ratio. Japan: Russia. It just doesn't make sense to kick people out of the country blaming it on economy, especially if you would do the same thing and attempt to find work elsewhere. Justifying deportation and violence with financial situation? It's not even about immigrants, the problem is many individual persons thinking they deserve something, when the aren't even willing to work as hard as another person, and thinking self-righteously while oblivious to one's own parasitic ways. It's not just in large-scale interaction, but exhibited in the instance of a family relationship, you have siblings, and one is willing to work, the other isn't, one thinks higher of her/himself, one doesn't, one is selfish and doesn't like to share, etc.. It's just dumb. What more is there to be said. I just think of the parents and how they raised them, how they were, and the influences that surrounded persons of such mentality. Who knows how it happens, but people pick up very bad way of life and relations toward others. Nazi-type entities spring up from simpler inequities that linger in a person, which are supposed to be dealt with, growing up as a child.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
Im actually just playing devils advocate.
My brother and I were having a good debate the other night about what should have happened to Germany after World War 2 and the happenings of war with that country. We did some fact checking etc etc, and were actually surprised to see how strong a military a country like Germany has, considering its historic past. We were surprised that the deaths of literally millions at the hand of a single country really didn't affect their future since the war, especially since early 1990. I actually played the opposite roll in that argument. But my brother did make some very good points, which are in this thread already. What somewhat put me on the edge decisiviley, was an argument that the current genepool of Germany, is from the populous which survived the war. The people that stood by and watched, doing nothing, as millions of people were exterminated. That actually elected by a massive majority the leadership and future they chose, and the slaugter that followed. That did nothing as the concentration camps within eye sight burned trainedloads of people. These people are the genetic makup which is the current german citizen. As much as I argued around it, it was a standing point which was fact.
Now, I see your post was an attempt to poke at Americans, their war efforts and involvements, etc etc, in an effort to frustrate or infuriate me. You won't get that much pleasure from me. I might be Canadian, and the USA might be my neighbor to the south, but I could care less for them as a general populous, personally speaking.
Well, you did not check your facts thoroughly, let me tell you that. Germany has a "relatively" strong military (with 60 years old APCs which actually are in Afghanistan right now), but then again, look for what its used. Our military spendings are actually influenced directly and indirectly by the US, forcing soldiers and equipment into foreign countries (which we never wanted to do in the first place).
I don't even go into the stupid "statement" of how it does/did not affect our future at all (you may want to check up on that), i'm sorry, but that's just not worth my time.
Your populistic speech on what germany did in WW2 is kinda pointless, we paid our toll (and we still pay). I'm not responsible for what happened 60 years ago. Neither is any other dude out of my or the last generation. So what do i care.
PS: Hitler was not elected, but i'm kinda not surprised that you did not mention that. Would make your statement look less shiny, you know.
Oh and also, i dont need to poke at americans. I went to war for them, which was based on a lie. Pretty much like the invasion of Poland in 39. So yeah, im still pissed because of that, i lost friends because of that.
Edit: not to mention the fact that your "math" about our spendings for military is pretty much flawed.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
Im actually just playing devils advocate.
My brother and I were having a good debate the other night about what should have happened to Germany after World War 2 and the happenings of war with that country. We did some fact checking etc etc, and were actually surprised to see how strong a military a country like Germany has, considering its historic past. We were surprised that the deaths of literally millions at the hand of a single country really didn't affect their future since the war, especially since early 1990. I actually played the opposite roll in that argument. But my brother did make some very good points, which are in this thread already. What somewhat put me on the edge decisiviley, was an argument that the current genepool of Germany, is from the populous which survived the war. The people that stood by and watched, doing nothing, as millions of people were exterminated. That actually elected by a massive majority the leadership and future they chose, and the slaugter that followed. That did nothing as the concentration camps within eye sight burned trainedloads of people. These people are the genetic makup which is the current german citizen. As much as I argued around it, it was a standing point which was fact. It happened, there were survivors, and those survivors lived on, procreated, and 2 and 3 generations later is where they are genetically.
Now, I see your post was an attempt to poke at Americans, their war efforts and involvements, etc etc, in an effort to frustrate or infuriate me. You won't get that much pleasure from me. I might be Canadian, and the USA might be my neighbor to the south, but I could care less for them as a general populous, personally speaking.
Okay some things. You know how Hitler took the power right? He had like probably a third of the votes. (forbidden parties, nonvoters etc. included). Now there were many of those nazis killed in the war, for obvious reasons. Second, you know there were many families fighting for democracy, hiding jews, etc. You couldn't just revolt at that time (again, obvious reasons). Third, there were rapes and mixups. SO you also can count in americans and russians. And nowadays trough immigration turks ofc . Now if you go back in history, you will find that there never was a german-type, typical genepool or whatever. Germany was invaded by france several times, by swedes, danes, turks, hungarians, etc. Now when they controlled parts of the country they obviously reproduced, mixing things up basically througout history. If you want to draw your strange conclusion about genetics you could now say that Hitler was basically all of europes fault and that all those people are probably nazis.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
Past history of conflicts? You should try a little closer to home if you want a real history of conflicts.
Edit: And before accepting the unification the allies wanted a clear declaration that Germany stays in the nato and doesnt become a demilitarized neutral state. From wiki: In December 1989, the administration of President George H. W. Bush made a united Germany's continued NATO membership a requirement for supporting reunification. Kohl agreed, although less than 20% of West Germans supported remaining within NATO
closer to home? do tell.
Nato you post - why Germany as part of Nato? So the rest of Nato can keep eyes on Germany so if need be, Nato can keep Germany under its thumb like a bug.
The problem is your statements are completely ignorant. Germany is much further from being ruled by some extremists than US is. Germany has no way of any military action against its neighbours. You know that they have two nuclear powers just around the corner. And Germany is not nuclear power. Their military spending is pitiful compared to other countries. Plus allies pretty much demanded remilitarization from Germany, no the other way around. Also you seem to have missed last 50 years of history, maybe you should educate yourself before you start your knee-jerk reactions.
Au contrair. You need to do your fact checking.
German military spending, over 40 Billion (B as in Butter). Compare to your nation with a puny less than 2 Billion. Like the Czech would stand a chance if Germany decided to invade, nuclear power or not. What a feeble argument you make, so easily crushed. Read my former post again. Germany spends more than nearly all its direct neighbors. COMBINED. France is the only exception ot the rule and throws the balance out of wack. If Germany wanted to take a few battalions and squadrons, and go for a march through Czech and through Poland then back home, there isnt sweet all those two countries could do about it other than be a bit of a pest with thier meager 2.5 and 9.1 Billion in military spending to Germany's 43B. They'd slow down the German stroll through the park, but not stop it, not even close.
As said before, most of the spending is wages. The machinery with which the German Army operates is so bad that people nowadays won't even join the military anymore. When we send our troups to Afghanistan, the lack of proper equipment made the average solider spend about 150€ of his own money to ensure atleast modest equipment. Also recent studies found that the German G-36 K becomes highly inaccurate after a certain amount of burst fire. Oh, and on top of that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War Gross-spending is a stupid number ..
On November 13 2012 06:38 SupLilSon wrote: I have relatives living in Europe, it's not like the World is completely disconnected in this day and age... Tons of ridiculous racist propaganda and ideology is floating around there. You get the same shit in America or anywhere else but it's usually restricted mostly to uneducated people. In Europe you get highly educated people buying into this crap, which is arguably much more dangerous.
Lets gather all of europe which differs immensely in terms of culture, put it into one box and then slap a racism sticker on it.
What gives you the idea that high educated people in europe are buying into racist propaganda?
It's anecdotal, but one of my cousins who grew up and lives in England is a successful doctor. He also truly believes that Jews run the American media and are the root of all evil.
He's not some antisocial nut who has crazy ideas. Him and his friends, who are also educated doctors buy into this propaganda.
Are you sure he said they are the root of all evil, or did he just say they run American media and you used some hyperbole?
How Jewish is Hollywood? By Joel Stein
I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.
How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.
The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)
The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.
Guys, really? What do military spending, imaginative wars of country X vs Y and Jews in the entertainment industry (or anywhere else) have to do with a supposed "Nazi-Uprising" in Germany?
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
Pretty sure that's one of the European countries.
Pretty sure it is one of the African countries (might depend on your definition of "war" though)...
EDIT: On topic I will say this though: I can in no way understand the people who become neonazis, but it is perfectly within their rights to do so. Having defined our values as we have in the western society you pretty much just have to accept their existence, just as the existence of "borderline" communist parties who advocate a violent revolution, disbandment of the army, police private right to property and the uprising of the working force (the budget for Denmark for next year was only passed due to the votes of such a party). I am tired of people trying to portrait all the extremism to the political right spectrum when the nutcases are equally as prevalent (and with historically a worse trackrecord). At least the neonazis are currently without influence!
On November 13 2012 06:38 SupLilSon wrote: I have relatives living in Europe, it's not like the World is completely disconnected in this day and age... Tons of ridiculous racist propaganda and ideology is floating around there. You get the same shit in America or anywhere else but it's usually restricted mostly to uneducated people. In Europe you get highly educated people buying into this crap, which is arguably much more dangerous.
Lets gather all of europe which differs immensely in terms of culture, put it into one box and then slap a racism sticker on it.
What gives you the idea that high educated people in europe are buying into racist propaganda?
It's anecdotal, but one of my cousins who grew up and lives in England is a successful doctor. He also truly believes that Jews run the American media and are the root of all evil.
He's not some antisocial nut who has crazy ideas. Him and his friends, who are also educated doctors buy into this propaganda.
Are you sure he said they are the root of all evil, or did he just say they run American media and you used some hyperbole?
How Jewish is Hollywood? By Joel Stein
I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.
How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.
The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)
The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.
1) I don't get how the Jews "running hollywood" has much to do with this thread, and; 2) I never understood why it's a problem? If everyone that ran big film companies were Christians would we be having this conversation? It's not a big deal unless you believe Jews are inherently evil (in which case i pity you).
Europe has been leaning to the left heavily for quite some time. Its only natural that there be some backlash especially when things arent going well. Of course, its hardly neo-nazism just like "far" left ideologies are hardly communism. Its just a branding by the left influenced moderates and leftists to demonize any sort of right movements.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
Im actually just playing devils advocate.
My brother and I were having a good debate the other night about what should have happened to Germany after World War 2 and the happenings of war with that country. We did some fact checking etc etc, and were actually surprised to see how strong a military a country like Germany has, considering its historic past. We were surprised that the deaths of literally millions at the hand of a single country really didn't affect their future since the war, especially since early 1990. I actually played the opposite roll in that argument. But my brother did make some very good points, which are in this thread already. What somewhat put me on the edge decisiviley, was an argument that the current genepool of Germany, is from the populous which survived the war. The people that stood by and watched, doing nothing, as millions of people were exterminated. That actually elected by a massive majority the leadership and future they chose, and the slaugter that followed. That did nothing as the concentration camps within eye sight burned trainedloads of people. These people are the genetic makup which is the current german citizen. As much as I argued around it, it was a standing point which was fact. It happened, there were survivors, and those survivors lived on, procreated, and 2 and 3 generations later is where they are genetically.
Now, I see your post was an attempt to poke at Americans, their war efforts and involvements, etc etc, in an effort to frustrate or infuriate me. You won't get that much pleasure from me. I might be Canadian, and the USA might be my neighbor to the south, but I could care less for them as a general populous, personally speaking.
If you put so much stock in genetics you are pretty close to the NAZI ideology of racism, but I have to disagree with you on the importance here. Genes are only the smaller part of the way in which people shape their country and military and the MUCH bigger one is the culture and education.
Because of this you should worry a lot more about your southern neighbors who are "genetically speaking" [replace genetically with culturally to make the statement correct] made up of those selfish people who didnt want to cooperate with the rest of their original european civilizations and sailed to "the promised land" to seek their fortune in america. This has created a country based on selfishness and "might makes right" and I personally fear for the future when they get an ultra-right conservative president. That could be worse than anything that Hitler did due to their much bigger firepower.
Fuck genes, they are only used as scapegoats for idiots who want a blank excuse for everything. Your education and cultural pressure can and will override the bad things in them - if they truly exist - but our western cultures are all about personal freedom now. This is actually worse than genes, that none of our cultures really cares about the global good and you should try to find a good definition for "freedom". I have found one, but wont spoil your effort to find one ... + Show Spoiler +
At the beginning of the 20th century there was a bright woman called Rosa Luxemburg. She was a german communist who was later on murdered, BUT she warned her russian colleagues that "freedom is always the freedom of those with different political opinions" because they were murdering every non-communist.
Based upon this I think the best definition for freedom is "Freedom is always the freedom of everyone else." So when your own freedom limits the freedom of someone else then you have reached the limit of what you can and should be allowed to do.
Every newborn baby is not much different from an animal. It cares only for itself in the search for food and the attention of its parents. This is good, BUT the selfishness MUST BE unlearned, because our technology is now so advanced and our economy is now so globally intertwined that any screw ups caused by selfish and greedy individuals can ruin the lives of many many many more globally and could potentially wipe out a huge part of nature in their arrogance.
Just take the recent financial crisis. How many people have been the motor for it and how many lives were ruined? Just imagine what one stupid mistake with genetically manipulated plants could do when they combine with the real nature and form something we didnt foresee. It makes me wonder if we ever learn from our past and stop making the same mistakes over and over again ...
The Killer Bees which cover south america by now and have moved up to the southern USA were a cross between strong african and productive south american races in an attempt to cut losses and increase productivity.
The shitload of non-native animals in Australia were imported there to have fun or increase productivity but they cause havoc among the natural flora and fauna.
The many many floodings on rivers have been caused by draining marsh areas next to them to increase the available farmland.
Please dont tell me these stupid things were done because it is in our human genes; you can decide to NOT DO IT if you are properly educated and your culture has the right "pressure" and "direction" towards a "live and let live attutude". If we dont change ... ALL OF US ... we can kiss this planet goodbye, because eventually some idiots will ruin this spaceship in their hunt for more money. Right now the western world is dominated by the USA ideal of free capitalism and that is one of the most selfish and destructive things that ever existed.
On November 13 2012 15:30 oneofthem wrote: i always am curious why nazis hate jews. what's the basis for this idea?
religion. people (christians) hated jews for thousands of years for whatever reasons they could find so it was naturally the first and easiest "race" to hate on
On November 13 2012 15:30 oneofthem wrote: i always am curious why nazis hate jews. what's the basis for this idea?
After we lost in WW1 Hitler - who was in the army during that time - and others tried to blame others for the loss. There was the "Dolchstosslegende" (that we would have won, but the home front gave up and thus stabbed the glorious military in the back) and Hitler just came up with the jews. That has stuck since then and it is easy to do ... just blame a jew for everything bad that is happening to you is an easy escape. Now its the foreign workers stealing the jobs btw., because "jews" would be too obvious.
So the core is "blame others and dont look accept that life can be tough". It is the same with all the conspiracy theories (about UFOs or 9/11) ... some people cant accept the fact that "bad things can happen without anyone being responsible for them OR that you can make mistakes (like misjudging the strength of your military OR missing the signs for an attack by AlQaeda)". Shit happens sometimes ....
On November 13 2012 15:30 oneofthem wrote: i always am curious why modern nazis hate jews. what's the basis for this idea?
is it just a tradition thing?
Jews, or as they are reffered to these days by neo-nazis and tinfoils, Zionists, or Zionism, are the ultimate scapegoat.
The conspiracy theories are so vast and plentiful, it isn't hard to convince some idiot that the Jews are behind all the wrongs of the world. Be it economy, culture, anything can be blamed on Jews.
The fate of the Jews is to suffer perpetual hatred, they really cannot escape it.
First they were banned from most jobs, so they drifted towards trade and banking. Now the Jews are held responsible for being bankers, and they must be made to pay for the control they have over the banking world. First they are driven into a corner, then they are beaten for hiding in a corner.
The Jews suffered the holocaust, but to the neo-nazis, the holocaust is an elaborate hoax, all done to deceive the world. The Jews were gassed and murdered by the millions, and for that they must be punished.
The Jews are driven out of Europe, into Israel, and now they must be punished for forming the state of Israel.
Jews will never escape their fate as the most hated minority in the world. We beat them, only to use their scars as an excuse to beat them more.
On November 13 2012 15:30 oneofthem wrote: i always am curious why nazis hate jews. what's the basis for this idea?
After we lost in WW1 Hitler - who was in the army during that time - and others tried to blame others for the loss. There was the "Dolchstosslegende" (that we would have won, but the home front gave up and thus stabbed the glorious military in the back) and Hitler just came up with the jews. That has stuck since then and it is easy to do ... just blame a jew for everything bad that is happening to you is an easy escape. Now its the foreign workers stealing the jobs btw., because "jews" would be too obvious.
Not correct, sorry. The Dolchstosslegende blamed defeat on the political Left, not on the Jews.
On November 13 2012 15:30 oneofthem wrote: i always am curious why modern nazis hate jews. what's the basis for this idea?
is it just a tradition thing?
Here's why the Nazis of old hated the Jews:
Well, first of all they are of the wrong race and ethnicity. That makes them a part of the out-group to be despised by the righteous that belong to the exclusive club of the upright standard bearers of the right religion, the right culture and the right ancestry.
Stir in a little fear, foment some anger, and direct resulting hate and aggression of the authority-loving, the ever faithful lemmings against the target (in this case the Jews), and voila!
On November 13 2012 15:30 oneofthem wrote: i always am curious why modern nazis hate jews. what's the basis for this idea?
is it just a tradition thing?
Jews, or as they are reffered to these days by neo-nazis and tinfoils, Zionists, or Zionism, are the ultimate scapegoat.
The conspiracy theories are so vast and plentiful, it isn't hard to convince some idiot that the Jews are behind all the wrongs of the world. Be it economy, culture, anything can be blamed on Jews.
The fate of the Jews is to suffer perpetual hatred, they really cannot escape it.
First they were banned from most jobs, so they drifted towards trade and banking. Now the Jews are held responsible for being bankers, and they must be made to pay for the control they have over the banking world. First they are driven into a corner, then they are beaten for hiding in a corner.
The Jews suffered the holocaust, but to the neo-nazis, the holocaust is an elaborate hoax, all done to deceive the world. The Jews were gassed and murdered by the millions, and for that they must be punished.
The Jews are driven out of Europe, into Israel, and now they must be punished for forming the state of Israel.
Jews will never escape their fate as the most hated minority in the world. We beat them, only to use their scars as an excuse to beat them more.
There is quite the difference between a zionist and a jew. One is (arguably) aggressively occupying the land of others, the other belongs to a ethnoreligious group due to his or her gene pool. But that is an entirely different can of worms which I really think should be closed before we open it any further. Please just do not use the two words interchangeably as they really do differ quite a lot.
On November 13 2012 15:30 oneofthem wrote: i always am curious why modern nazis hate jews. what's the basis for this idea?
is it just a tradition thing?
Jews, or as they are reffered to these days by neo-nazis and tinfoils, Zionists, or Zionism, are the ultimate scapegoat.
The conspiracy theories are so vast and plentiful, it isn't hard to convince some idiot that the Jews are behind all the wrongs of the world. Be it economy, culture, anything can be blamed on Jews.
The fate of the Jews is to suffer perpetual hatred, they really cannot escape it.
First they were banned from most jobs, so they drifted towards trade and banking. Now the Jews are held responsible for being bankers, and they must be made to pay for the control they have over the banking world. First they are driven into a corner, then they are beaten for hiding in a corner.
The Jews suffered the holocaust, but to the neo-nazis, the holocaust is an elaborate hoax, all done to deceive the world. The Jews were gassed and murdered by the millions, and for that they must be punished.
The Jews are driven out of Europe, into Israel, and now they must be punished for forming the state of Israel.
Jews will never escape their fate as the most hated minority in the world. We beat them, only to use their scars as an excuse to beat them more.
There is quite the difference between a zionist and a jew. One is (arguably) aggressively occupying the land of others, the other belongs to a ethnoreligious group due to his or her gene pool. But that is an entirely different can of worms which I really think should be closed before we open it any further. Please just do not use the two words interchangeably as they really do differ quite a lot.
In theory they differ, in practice they really don't.
When conspiracy nuts or neo-nazis talk about Zionism, they're talking about Jews.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
Im actually just playing devils advocate.
My brother and I were having a good debate the other night about what should have happened to Germany after World War 2 and the happenings of war with that country. We did some fact checking etc etc, and were actually surprised to see how strong a military a country like Germany has, considering its historic past. We were surprised that the deaths of literally millions at the hand of a single country really didn't affect their future since the war, especially since early 1990. I actually played the opposite roll in that argument. But my brother did make some very good points, which are in this thread already. What somewhat put me on the edge decisiviley, was an argument that the current genepool of Germany, is from the populous which survived the war. The people that stood by and watched, doing nothing, as millions of people were exterminated. That actually elected by a massive majority the leadership and future they chose, and the slaugter that followed. That did nothing as the concentration camps within eye sight burned trainedloads of people. These people are the genetic makup which is the current german citizen. As much as I argued around it, it was a standing point which was fact. It happened, there were survivors, and those survivors lived on, procreated, and 2 and 3 generations later is where they are genetically.
Now, I see your post was an attempt to poke at Americans, their war efforts and involvements, etc etc, in an effort to frustrate or infuriate me. You won't get that much pleasure from me. I might be Canadian, and the USA might be my neighbor to the south, but I could care less for them as a general populous, personally speaking.
Are you fucking stupid?!?! How on earth can you really think that a genepool can inflict a nation this heavily? Society is definite by culture and education, not what my fucking granddad did or didn´t do. That doesn´t affect me at all. And btw what do you think your ancestors came from?! That´s right, Europe. Fuck your genepool! And next time you do "some fact checking" : Hitler wasn´t elected, but i´m not really suprised by that seeing your last posts. And on the whole debate, we just had a really nice event here in cologne where we have an annual concert against racism and intolerance and freakin´ 80000 people showed up, last anti-nazi demo i went we were 15000 against 100 neo-nazis. Tell that your fucking genepool and get some education!
Jews have been a scapegoat for centuries. The only reason anti-antisemitism has died down in the west over the last few decades is because of the growth of PC as well as a collective guilt/pity over the Holocaust.
The question is why are Jews so hated over the centuries? The answer is relatively simple. In the west, most communities have been homogenous. You live in a catholic town or you live in a protestant town. Jews are kind of separate from the communities due to different religion and thus different assemblies and traditions. Being separate or different has historically been a liability.
The more time passes between the end of World War 2 the worse the problem is bound to become.
It's human nature to forget the lessons of the past especially when you're born in an age far removed from them.
VERY few that are alive now can possibly remember the ramifications of the ideologies of Nazi-ism and Fascism and the resulting destruction those two ideologies helped lead to. Learning about it in a textbook isn't the same thing.
This is just my cynical view of the matter. It's entirely opinion though.
On November 13 2012 15:53 Mallard86 wrote: Jews have been a scapegoat for centuries. The only reason anti-antisemitism has died down in the west over the last few decades is because of the growth of PC as well as a collective guilt/pity over the Holocaust.
The question is why are Jews so hated over the centuries? The answer is relatively simple. In the west, most communities have been homogenous. You live in a catholic town or you live in a protestant town. Jews are kind of separate from the communities due to different religion and thus different assemblies and traditions. Being separate or different has historically been a liability.
The "You-killed-Christ" narrative that ran through the church is probably more too blame than their funny hats.
On November 13 2012 15:53 Mallard86 wrote: Jews have been a scapegoat for centuries. The only reason anti-antisemitism has died down in the west over the last few decades is because of the growth of PC as well as a collective guilt/pity over the Holocaust.
The question is why are Jews so hated over the centuries? The answer is relatively simple. In the west, most communities have been homogenous. You live in a catholic town or you live in a protestant town. Jews are kind of separate from the communities due to different religion and thus different assemblies and traditions. Being separate or different has historically been a liability.
The "You-killed-Christ" narrative that ran through the church is probably more too blame than their funny hats.
I disagree. Christians killed far more Christians due to different flavors of Christianity than Christians killed Jews due to killing Christ. Also there was plenty of persecution of Muslims in Spain, Italy and southeastern Europe.
Are you fucking stupid?!?! How on earth can you really think that a genepool can inflict a nation this heavily? Society is definite by culture and education, not what my fucking granddad did or didn´t do. That doesn´t affect me at all. And btw what do you think your ancestors came from?! That´s right, Europe. Fuck your genepool! And next time you do "some fact checking" : Hitler wasn´t elected, but i´m not really suprised by that seeing your last posts. And on the whole debate, we just had a really nice event here in cologne where we have an annual concert against racism and intolerance and freakin´ 80000 people showed up, last anti-nazi demo i went we were 15000 against 100 neo-nazis. Tell that your fucking genepool and get some education!
User was temp banned for this post.
Well this guy was temp banned for, at least I assume, bad language. But the core point is valid: As a German myself I´m sick of people telling me, that we have to apologize for things that I (including like all of my genereration) actually never did.
Also it is very ironic, that people argument now with a "german genepool", which a) doesn´t exist and b) if so is shared everywhere (making it not "german") and c) use arguments like a nazi to brand others as "nazis."
You think Germany is full of Nazis? Look somewhere else, because there will be more to find.
Let's just make a simple test and most of you will understand why there is anti-semitism in this world....
Just imagine the Nazis were right. The Jews really are the root of all problems, killed Jesus. Imagine they control the media and Hollywood, all the money, the banking system and by it the World.
Really try to imagine that this is reality, if you are able to, you understand a simple truth. And the truth is, there are a lot of things in this world YOU believe...
Reality is what we believe... and we believe Israel is the Holy Land, that's why we take it, we expand it and we die for it. These desert monkeys shoot with firecracker rockets at our bunkers, we have bunkers every 100 meters, we have rocket sirenes, who alert us. We have Drones 24/7 flying over Gaza and the West Bank. We are in total control. We will never tolerate another Holocaust. We have the technology and the power to survive everything. When we go down, we will take the world with us. We also got i think a couple of hundred atomic warheads on Jericho 3 rockets, who have a radius of over 5000 kilometers. We have free (yes free) german submarines armed with atomic warheads. If Israel falls, the Samson option will be initiated, trust me.
There is no Israel without the world and there is no world without Israel.
I like to quote David Perlmutter: "Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow—it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Samson in Gaza? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away—unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans—have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?
On November 13 2012 15:53 Mallard86 wrote: Jews have been a scapegoat for centuries. The only reason anti-antisemitism has died down in the west over the last few decades is because of the growth of PC as well as a collective guilt/pity over the Holocaust.
The question is why are Jews so hated over the centuries? The answer is relatively simple. In the west, most communities have been homogenous. You live in a catholic town or you live in a protestant town. Jews are kind of separate from the communities due to different religion and thus different assemblies and traditions. Being separate or different has historically been a liability.
The "You-killed-Christ" narrative that ran through the church is probably more too blame than their funny hats.
Don't forget the money-lending business. That garnered a lot of people's misappropriated hate. Back then, good Catholics couldn't loan money, so if you wanted to take out a loan, you're likely going to visit a Jewish establishment, and gawk at whatever interest rate they charged (I can only imagine with so little competition what those rates looked like back in that era). In the eyes of one PhD political scientist, this was the reason just behind natural distrust of a non-assimilating culture & people group that Jews garnered such hate.
Are you fucking stupid?!?! How on earth can you really think that a genepool can inflict a nation this heavily? Society is definite by culture and education, not what my fucking granddad did or didn´t do. That doesn´t affect me at all. And btw what do you think your ancestors came from?! That´s right, Europe. Fuck your genepool! And next time you do "some fact checking" : Hitler wasn´t elected, but i´m not really suprised by that seeing your last posts. And on the whole debate, we just had a really nice event here in cologne where we have an annual concert against racism and intolerance and freakin´ 80000 people showed up, last anti-nazi demo i went we were 15000 against 100 neo-nazis. Tell that your fucking genepool and get some education!
User was temp banned for this post.
Well this guy was temp banned for, at least I assume, bad language. But the core point is valid: As a German myself I´m sick of people telling me, that we have to apologize for things that I (including like all of my genereration) actually never did.
Also it is very ironic, that people argument now with a "german genepool", which a) doesn´t exist and b) if so is shared everywhere (making it not "german") and c) use arguments like a nazi to brand others as "nazis."
You think Germany is full of Nazis? Look somewhere else, because there will be more to find.
There are more far-rights extremists in Israel than in Germany anyways.
Pretty ironic that the people that were affected by the holocaust are doing one right now.. I guess playing the victim in this world can lead you far.
On November 13 2012 15:30 oneofthem wrote: i always am curious why nazis hate jews. what's the basis for this idea?
religion. people (christians) hated jews for thousands of years for whatever reasons they could find so it was naturally the first and easiest "race" to hate on
For most of history Jews and Christians never really got along...you know, since the Jews killed by proxy Jesus. It's only been in the past eighty years or so, that Dispensationalism has crept into the 'mainstream'. Though shalt forgive, unless, you kill Jesus, I suppose. /shrug
On November 13 2012 16:47 Lecideur wrote: Let's just make a simple test and most of you will understand why there is anti-semitism in this world....
Just imagine the Nazis were right. The Jews really are the root of all problems, killed Jesus. Imagine they control the media and Hollywood, all the money, the banking system and by it the World.
Really try to imagine that this is reality, if you are able to, you understand a simple truth. And the truth is, there are a lot of things in this world YOU believe...
Reality is what we believe... and we believe Israel is the Holy Land, that's why we take it, we expand it and we die for it. These desert monkeys shoot with firecracker rockets at our bunkers, we have bunkers every 100 meters, we have rocket sirenes, who alert us. We have Drones 24/7 flying over Gaza and the West Bank. We are in total control. We will never tolerate another Holocaust. We have the technology and the power to survive everything. When we go down, we will take the world with us. We also got i think a couple of hundred atomic warheads on Jericho 3 rockets, who have a radius of over 5000 kilometers. We have free (yes free) german submarines armed with atomic warheads. If Israel falls, the Samson option will be initiated, trust me.
There is no Israel without the world and there is no world without Israel.
I like to quote David Perlmutter: "Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow—it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Samson in Gaza? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away—unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans—have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?
Never underestimate us again.
The entire world really? Even Far east Asia and South East Asia that had nothing to do with it and at that time probably just saw Jews as White people. You'll blow them up for no reason?
On November 13 2012 16:47 Lecideur wrote: Let's just make a simple test and most of you will understand why there is anti-semitism in this world....
Just imagine the Nazis were right. The Jews really are the root of all problems, killed Jesus. Imagine they control the media and Hollywood, all the money, the banking system and by it the World.
Really try to imagine that this is reality, if you are able to, you understand a simple truth. And the truth is, there are a lot of things in this world YOU believe...
Reality is what we believe... and we believe Israel is the Holy Land, that's why we take it, we expand it and we die for it. These desert monkeys shoot with firecracker rockets at our bunkers, we have bunkers every 100 meters, we have rocket sirenes, who alert us. We have Drones 24/7 flying over Gaza and the West Bank. We are in total control. We will never tolerate another Holocaust. We have the technology and the power to survive everything. When we go down, we will take the world with us. We also got i think a couple of hundred atomic warheads on Jericho 3 rockets, who have a radius of over 5000 kilometers. We have free (yes free) german submarines armed with atomic warheads. If Israel falls, the Samson option will be initiated, trust me.
There is no Israel without the world and there is no world without Israel.
I like to quote David Perlmutter: "Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow—it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Samson in Gaza? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away—unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans—have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?
Could we label them xenonazis maybe? I don't feel that german or finnish far right (which I've got to know a lot about since living here for two years, and if you look at the news, gained a horrifying amount of seats in finnish municipal and national elections) are sharing any ideals that extremist groups in the easter part of Europe. Like, here, in Hungary, these marching skinhead vandals are actually burning Jewish flags and killing gypsies, and so forth O.o
And while both are severe problems, finnish, german, and austrian people (who are ranking #1 in polls about quitting the EU) aligning themselves with populist ideas, such as not letting foreigners getting educated on their money, assimilation problems with muslims, and fear of losing their jobs to cheaper foreign labor, are dealing with entirely different socioeconomical problems than far rightists in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, or Russia, where I think it's mostly an ideological thing.
Thus I feel a difference should be made between the two, before too many things are melted in the term "Nazi" making it harder for us to grasp some aspects of these problems.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
Except Canada shares a relationship with US that Germany doesn't with its neighbours - especially given the history of wars. Canada and US had like 1 war with bayonets that Canada won or something? lol
So Austria shares a relationship with Germany .... especially given the history of wars. Modern Germany and Austria are very young countries and there were so many wars between fractions of Germany and Austria-Hungary, Germanic and Celtic tribes, the Roman empire (which todays Austria was a part of) against German Hippies on Mushrooms, HOW FAR DO I GO BACK HERE ? What is shared history ? Are we only talking about the 2 World War ? You obviously aren't in your example. But the history between European countries, for obvious reasons, goes much deeper. Where do I make the cut ? Most likely almost all the countries were allied, occupied, fought wars etc.
What on earth is shared history ? Okay Poland might go "Well, we have been occupied by Austria, Russia, Prussia, Communists, Nazis ..." and you might not find many positive feelings towards Germany (historically speaking) ... If we actually sum up all the things that happened in Europe and let ourselves be trapped by it, its everyone against everyone.
EDIT : In the last 200 years, Germany was more divided than unified if you measure years.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
Except Canada shares a relationship with US that Germany doesn't with its neighbours - especially given the history of wars. Canada and US had like 1 war with bayonets that Canada won or something? lol
So Austria shares a relationship with Germany .... especially given the history of wars. Modern Germany and Austria are very young countries and there were so many wars between fractions of Germany and Austria-Hungary, Germanic and Celtic tribes, the Roman empire (which todays Austria was a part of) against German Hippies on Mushrooms, HOW FAR DO I GO BACK HERE ? What is shared history ? Are we only talking about the 2 World War ? You obviously aren't in your example. But the history between European countries, for obvious reasons, goes much deeper. Where do I make the cut ? Most likely almost all the countries were allied, occupied, fought wars etc.
What on earth is shared history ? Okay Poland might go "Well, we have been occupied by Austria, Russia, Prussia, Communists, Nazis ..." and you might not find many positive feelings towards Germany (historically speaking) ... If we actually sum up all the things that happened in Europe and let ourselves be trapped by it, its everyone against everyone.
EDIT : In the last 200 years, Germany was more divided than unified if you measure years.
No use talking to people like that. They see history and warfare as some black and white affair were the good guys fight against the bad guys.
Are you fucking stupid?!?! How on earth can you really think that a genepool can inflict a nation this heavily? Society is definite by culture and education, not what my fucking granddad did or didn´t do. That doesn´t affect me at all. And btw what do you think your ancestors came from?! That´s right, Europe. Fuck your genepool! And next time you do "some fact checking" : Hitler wasn´t elected, but i´m not really suprised by that seeing your last posts. And on the whole debate, we just had a really nice event here in cologne where we have an annual concert against racism and intolerance and freakin´ 80000 people showed up, last anti-nazi demo i went we were 15000 against 100 neo-nazis. Tell that your fucking genepool and get some education!
User was temp banned for this post.
Well this guy was temp banned for, at least I assume, bad language. But the core point is valid: As a German myself I´m sick of people telling me, that we have to apologize for things that I (including like all of my genereration) actually never did.
Also it is very ironic, that people argument now with a "german genepool", which a) doesn´t exist and b) if so is shared everywhere (making it not "german") and c) use arguments like a nazi to brand others as "nazis."
You think Germany is full of Nazis? Look somewhere else, because there will be more to find.
I feel the same way and I also understand the emotional response from my fellow german. I´m too getting offended by such statements.
What somewhat put me on the edge decisiviley, was an argument that the current genepool of Germany, is from the populous which survived the war. The people that stood by and watched, doing nothing, as millions of people were exterminated. That actually elected by a massive majority the leadership and future they chose, and the slaugter that followed.
I mean current genepool of Germany ? This is ridiculous. Not to mention all the false information in that statement too.
On November 13 2012 16:47 Lecideur wrote: Let's just make a simple test and most of you will understand why there is anti-semitism in this world....
Just imagine the Nazis were right. The Jews really are the root of all problems, killed Jesus. Imagine they control the media and Hollywood, all the money, the banking system and by it the World.
Really try to imagine that this is reality, if you are able to, you understand a simple truth. And the truth is, there are a lot of things in this world YOU believe...
Reality is what we believe... and we believe Israel is the Holy Land, that's why we take it, we expand it and we die for it. These desert monkeys shoot with firecracker rockets at our bunkers, we have bunkers every 100 meters, we have rocket sirenes, who alert us. We have Drones 24/7 flying over Gaza and the West Bank. We are in total control. We will never tolerate another Holocaust. We have the technology and the power to survive everything. When we go down, we will take the world with us. We also got i think a couple of hundred atomic warheads on Jericho 3 rockets, who have a radius of over 5000 kilometers. We have free (yes free) german submarines armed with atomic warheads. If Israel falls, the Samson option will be initiated, trust me.
There is no Israel without the world and there is no world without Israel.
I like to quote David Perlmutter: "Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow—it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Samson in Gaza? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away—unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans—have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?
Never underestimate us again.
haha this is cute
"we can survive anything", but on the off chance we get "taken down", we'll nuke the "ENTIRE" world because we CAN and because FUCK YOU we're Israel and RAWR look how awesome it is to make these epic claims and we won't tolerate another Holocaust and if it looks like it'll happen again we'll kill EVERYONE in the world because well BECAUSE
On November 13 2012 16:47 Lecideur wrote: Let's just make a simple test and most of you will understand why there is anti-semitism in this world....
Just imagine the Nazis were right. The Jews really are the root of all problems, killed Jesus. Imagine they control the media and Hollywood, all the money, the banking system and by it the World.
Really try to imagine that this is reality, if you are able to, you understand a simple truth. And the truth is, there are a lot of things in this world YOU believe...
Reality is what we believe... and we believe Israel is the Holy Land, that's why we take it, we expand it and we die for it. These desert monkeys shoot with firecracker rockets at our bunkers, we have bunkers every 100 meters, we have rocket sirenes, who alert us. We have Drones 24/7 flying over Gaza and the West Bank. We are in total control. We will never tolerate another Holocaust. We have the technology and the power to survive everything. When we go down, we will take the world with us. We also got i think a couple of hundred atomic warheads on Jericho 3 rockets, who have a radius of over 5000 kilometers. We have free (yes free) german submarines armed with atomic warheads. If Israel falls, the Samson option will be initiated, trust me.
There is no Israel without the world and there is no world without Israel.
I like to quote David Perlmutter: "Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow—it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Samson in Gaza? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away—unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans—have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?
Never underestimate us again.
haha this is cute
"we can survive anything", but on the off chance we get "taken down", we'll nuke the "ENTIRE" world because we CAN and because FUCK YOU we're Israel and RAWR look how awesome it is to make these epic claims and we won't tolerate another Holocaust and if it looks like it'll happen again we'll kill EVERYONE in the world because well BECAUSE
On November 13 2012 15:53 Mallard86 wrote: Jews have been a scapegoat for centuries. The only reason anti-antisemitism has died down in the west over the last few decades is because of the growth of PC as well as a collective guilt/pity over the Holocaust.
The question is why are Jews so hated over the centuries? The answer is relatively simple. In the west, most communities have been homogenous. You live in a catholic town or you live in a protestant town. Jews are kind of separate from the communities due to different religion and thus different assemblies and traditions. Being separate or different has historically been a liability.
The "You-killed-Christ" narrative that ran through the church is probably more too blame than their funny hats.
Don't forget the money-lending business. That garnered a lot of people's misappropriated hate. Back then, good Catholics couldn't loan money, so if you wanted to take out a loan, you're likely going to visit a Jewish establishment, and gawk at whatever interest rate they charged (I can only imagine with so little competition what those rates looked like back in that era). In the eyes of one PhD political scientist, this was the reason just behind natural distrust of a non-assimilating culture & people group that Jews garnered such hate.
That is why I spoke about the circular nature of the hatred.
Jews were banned from doing most work, so they were forced to the fringes of trade and banking.
In turn, they became the supposed Jewish banking cabal that runs the world, and for that they must be made to pay according to the neo-nazis.
The hatred is perpetual. An injustice is inflicted upon the Jews, and in turn that injustice becomes justification for the next injustice.
On November 13 2012 00:26 oneofthem wrote: far right sentiments is a proper public concern. much like terrorism, racism and other kinds of 'bad' ideology. it needs to be controlled and eradicated if possible.
On November 13 2012 00:26 oneofthem wrote: far right sentiments is a proper public concern. much like terrorism, racism and other kinds of 'bad' ideology. it needs to be controlled and eradicated if possible.
On November 13 2012 15:53 Mallard86 wrote: Jews have been a scapegoat for centuries. The only reason anti-antisemitism has died down in the west over the last few decades is because of the growth of PC as well as a collective guilt/pity over the Holocaust.
The question is why are Jews so hated over the centuries? The answer is relatively simple. In the west, most communities have been homogenous. You live in a catholic town or you live in a protestant town. Jews are kind of separate from the communities due to different religion and thus different assemblies and traditions. Being separate or different has historically been a liability.
There may be some carry-over of historical Judeophobia into modern anti-semitism, but anyone with a basic understanding of the intellectual history of modern Germany will find the Goldhagen thesis untenable. There is a world of difference between traditional anti-Jewish feeling of the villages, the synthecist debates during the Jewish enlightenment from a C.W. von Dohm, and national-folkish anti-semitism of a Wilhelm Marr.
Categorising people like the Nazis as exploiting traditional Catholic prejudices about Jews is as unhistorical as you can get.
Anyone claiming to have read Mein Kampf will easily recognise the distinction Hitler makes when recounting the crystallisation of his own anti-semitism:
To-day it is hard and almost impossible for me to say when the word 'Jew' first began to raise any particular thought in my mind. I do not remember even having heard the word at home during my father's lifetime. If this name were mentioned in a derogatory sense I think the old gentleman would just have considered those who used it in this way as being uneducated reactionaries. In the course of his career he had come to be more or less a cosmopolitan, with strong views on nationalism, which had its effect on me as well. In school, too, I found no reason to alter the picture of things I had formed at home.
At the REALSCHULE I knew one Jewish boy. We were all on our guard in our relations with him, but only because his reticence and certain actions of his warned us to be discreet. Beyond that my companions and myself formed no particular opinions in regard to him.
It was not until I was fourteen or fifteen years old that I frequently ran up against the word 'Jew', partly in connection with political controversies. These references aroused a slight aversion in me, and I could not avoid an uncomfortable feeling which always came over me when I had to listen to religious disputes. But at that time I had no other feelings about the Jewish question.
There were very few Jews in Linz. In the course of centuries the Jews who lived there had become Europeanized in external appearance and were so much like other human beings that I even looked upon them as Germans. The reason why I did not then perceive the absurdity of such an illusion was that the only external mark which I recognized as distinguishing them from us was the practice of their strange religion. As I thought that they were persecuted on account of their Faith my aversion to hearing remarks against them grew almost into a feeling of abhorrence. I did not in the least suspect that there could be such a thing as a systematic anti-Semitism.
Then I came to Vienna.
Confused by the mass of impressions I received from the architectural surroundings and depressed by my own troubles, I did not at first distinguish between the different social strata of which the population of that mammoth city was composed. Although Vienna then had about two hundred thousand Jews among its population of two millions, I did not notice them. During the first weeks of my sojourn my eyes and my mind were unable to cope with the onrush of new ideas and values. Not until I gradually settled down to my surroundings, and the confused picture began to grow clearer, did I acquire a more discriminating view of my new world. And with that I came up against the Jewish problem.
I will not say that the manner in which I first became acquainted with it was particularly unpleasant for me. In the Jew I still saw only a man who was of a different religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I was against the idea that he should be attacked because he had a different faith. And so I considered that the tone adopted by the anti-Semitic Press in Vienna was unworthy of the cultural traditions of a great people. The memory of certain events which happened in the middle ages came into my mind, and I felt that I should not like to see them repeated. Generally speaking, these anti-Semitic newspapers did not belong to the first rank--but I did not then understand the reason of this--and so I regarded them more as the products of jealousy and envy rather than the expression of a sincere, though wrong-headed, feeling.
Not any of the top Nazis fit the old-fashioned profile of the anti-semite, and many did not even fit the profile of the biological determinist. Hitler said it himself: the Jews are a race of the spirit, not of the flesh.
That is one of the elemental problems addressed by my previous intrusion into the argument. That people, due to the Nazi past, are united and determined to resist the proliferation of anti-semitism, it is clear. Unfortunately, they don't really understand what they are trying to resist. Hence not only the historical, but also the moral feebleness of their efforts.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
No it isn't. The German military defence budget is 1.3% of gdp, among the lowest, if not the lowest of any devolved large nation in the world.
- They have no independent heavy lifting logistical aircraft, no nuclear weapons, no nuclear attack submarines, no aircraft carriers, no blue-water navy, no independent military satellite network and are reliant on foreign military company's for much of there hardware.
Germany literally has little way of projecting its power beyond its borders outside of NATO. The entire German military was basically built for a single purpose, to provide the Russian's with one hell of a roadblock to breaching western Europe, even with the collapse of the Soviet Union, a resurgent Russia is still the primary threat to European security.
To be honest the only EU military's worth a damn these days are France and the United Kingdom and even they can only perform limited operations independently and are suffering cutbacks. Frankly, despite the political problems the EU would be a whole lot better off with a single unified military. It's better to have 1 effective military than 27 self defence forces, which is what many of them are or becoming.
I think its normal that some people would take on a more vocal anti immigration stance during economic crisis. I don't see this as Nazism, but it doesn't surprise me that some media are trying to sell it to the masses in such a way, it also doesn't surprise me to see people get emotional about sensitive subjects like this without really thinking it through.
Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years
It's got to be us, Britain.
I'm not sure if we've actually ever technically been at peace in the last 200 years. There's pretty much always been British soldiers fighting in some far flung part of the world, still the case now.
On November 13 2012 22:25 MoltkeWarding wrote: Unfortunately, they don't really understand what they are trying to resist. Hence not only the historical, but also the moral feebleness of their efforts.
they are not limited or restricted to resist only the exact contour of the antisemitism animating naziism. a general resistance against dehumanizing thinking is enough.
On November 13 2012 22:25 MoltkeWarding wrote: Unfortunately, they don't really understand what they are trying to resist. Hence not only the historical, but also the moral feebleness of their efforts.
they are not limited or restricted to resist only the exact contour of the antisemitism animating naziism. a general resistance against dehumanizing thinking is enough.
When you say that you're resisting a categorical kind of thought attributed to a certain group, whether it be Nazis, Jews, bourgeois-reactionaries, hipsters, punks, or astrologists, regardless of whether their conscious and expressed opinions fit your caricaturisation, you are the one committing the dehumanisation of people, first and foremost. Thinking of the past, which is filled by human beings in terms of stylised ethical oppositions alone is the dehumanisation of history. Saying that you are capable of direct access to moral truth without looking at its worldly manifestations is not only dehumanising, it is sacrilege. It is a sort of self-deification which makes you more low-brow than the most vulgar of Nazi theologians.
the point is that we are not limited to resisting nazis specifically as in, arguing against the nazis. it's just to prevent a problem that was manifest in the nazis as a prominent incident.
if i cared enough i'd actually try to figure out what you are thinking but the general silliness of it is enough for the present purpose.
When you say that you're resisting a categorical kind of thought attributed to a certain group, whether it be Nazis, Jews, bourgeois-reactionaries, hipsters, punks, or astrologists, regardless of whether their conscious and expressed opinions fit your caricaturisation, you are the one committing the dehumanisation of people, first and foremost. Thinking of the past, which is filled by human beings in terms of stylised ethical oppositions alone is the dehumanisation of history. Saying that you are capable of direct access to moral truth without looking at its worldly manifestations is not only dehumanising, it is sacrilege. It is a sort of self-deification which makes you more low-brow than the most vulgar of Nazi theologians.
No, not in the slighest.
A political movement exhibits certain traits. Using names like communism or fascism, we classify ideas into groups.
A Nazi will always adhere to a majority of Nazi thought, otherwise we wouldn't classify him/her as a Nazi.
You can't be pro-freemarket, pro-individual rights, and pro-democracy, and be a Nazi, at some point you follow too few ideas of a certain political strand, and you are given a different label.
To suggest that speaking out against any group is wrong, is not accurate. It would leave anyone crippled, unable to speak out against anyone, regardless of the horrors that their views represent.
Stalinist-communists represent the same ideology, by and large, the same goes for many other political beliefs.
If those beliefs clash with my own, I can denounce the entire group.
Now, the problem is when one begins to attribute positions to a person's race, or other inborn elements.
Lashing out at ideas, or groups that adhere to those ideals, is not wrong. Leaving yourself crippled out of fear of insulting, is far worse when it means tolerating the political thoughts that would have us destroy ourselves.
On November 13 2012 23:30 oneofthem wrote: the point is not to resist nazis specifically as in, arguing against the nazis. it's just to prevent a problem that was manifest in the nazis as a prominent incident.
if i cared enough i'd actually try to figure out what you are thinking but the general silliness of it is enough for the present purpose.
I would like to know what the problem manifest in the Nazis was, according to an ahistorical expert of the human soul such as yourself. If you cannot give it articulation, your moral opposition is worthless. You are either resisting nothing, or a figment of your own imagination. It is then your own imagination which is being projected outward to label and condemn other people whom you don't understand. If that's not dehumanizing, I don't know what is.
Contrary to previous contentions, the general educated populace does not know much about the essence of Nazi Germany, even as much as we are hazy in our factual history. What we do is take a difficult ethical problem, convert it to something we can easily brush under the rug, and pretend that we are sanitary people.
i would have thought the problem obvious, even to you.
but anyway, using your idea that operating on a level of representation that is larger in size than an individual and her thoughts is necessarily dehumanizing, (not true btw, + Show Spoiler +
given closure of physical world any characteristic observed on the group level is valid if not necessarily specifically realized on the individual level. is there the possibility of a good nazi, or good nazi ideas? maybeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, but the general group level judgments are still okay. for a guy like heidegger under most charitable interpretation of the facts there is still the problem of his ability to find nothing appalling in a deathly idea. that suggests a fatal hole in whatever sophisticated system he might have held
) nazis engaged in a lot of group level prejudices and thus dehumanizing thinking. such as when they thought jews should all be killed for being jews.
your act is like an anti death penalty post during nuremberg. not even, it's more like a "don't be mean to nazis" protest during nuremberg.
On November 13 2012 23:49 oneofthem wrote: i would have thought the problem obvious, even to you.
but anyway, using your idea that operating on a level of representation that is larger in size than an individual and her thoughts is necessarily dehumanizing, (not true btw, given closure of physical world any characteristic observed on the group level is valid if not necessarily specifically realized on the individual level) nazis engaged in a lot of group level prejudices and thus dehumanizing thinking. such as when they thought jews should all be killed for being jews.
your act is like an anti death penalty post during nuremberg. not even, it's more like a "don't be mean to nazis" protest during nuremberg.
Actually what I am saying is quite the opposite: a moral rejection of Nazism on the level you are entertaining is no sufficient defense against Nazism.
I would like to draw you out in the sole example you cite: Which Nazis thought that Jews should all be killed for being Jews? Did Goering think so? Did Speer think so? Ribbentrop? If Hitler and Himmler thought so, did their conscious and historical records leave any trace of justification of genocide? Or did even they never go that far? If their statements went so far as to justify genocide, what were the justifications they offered? Did the most virulent anti-semites in the Nazi party, such as Hitler and Himmer and Rosenberg and Goebbels agree as to the essence of the Jewish problem, or did they have divergent and mutually exclusive opinions?
How did the Nazi leadership conceptualise Jews? Did the Jews represent to them a race, nation, religion or something else? Did they see Judaism as a subjective or objective category? Were the Jews morally speaking a monolithic group to them? Were there any Jewish exceptions in their eyes?
If you cannot answer these questions (and to be honest, I cannot fully answer many of these questions) then you are reduced to a kind of bland moral theology. "Nazis engaged in a lot of group level prejudices and thus dehumanizing thinking." As you say, so are you. I assume then that what you are opposing is not a particular approach, but a particular argument. I have yet to hear that argument articulated in any manner.
i don't know if i am interested in answering your questions if you somehow miss the point of post ww2 education so badly. let those who see judge.
but you are wrong in your one substantial assertion. a condemnation of an act does not necessarily have to appeal to mental state at all, a mere egregious consequence of the act is enough. this certainly works on the level of what the nazis did.
for instance, if communists were well intended and still 'caused' 200m deaths, then that's bad. it speaks badly about at least a kind of communism that would let that slide.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
Im actually just playing devils advocate.
My brother and I were having a good debate the other night about what should have happened to Germany after World War 2 and the happenings of war with that country. We did some fact checking etc etc, and were actually surprised to see how strong a military a country like Germany has, considering its historic past. We were surprised that the deaths of literally millions at the hand of a single country really didn't affect their future since the war, especially since early 1990. I actually played the opposite roll in that argument. But my brother did make some very good points, which are in this thread already. What somewhat put me on the edge decisiviley, was an argument that the current genepool of Germany, is from the populous which survived the war. The people that stood by and watched, doing nothing, as millions of people were exterminated. That actually elected by a massive majority the leadership and future they chose, and the slaugter that followed. That did nothing as the concentration camps within eye sight burned trainedloads of people. These people are the genetic makup which is the current german citizen. As much as I argued around it, it was a standing point which was fact. It happened, there were survivors, and those survivors lived on, procreated, and 2 and 3 generations later is where they are genetically.
Now, I see your post was an attempt to poke at Americans, their war efforts and involvements, etc etc, in an effort to frustrate or infuriate me. You won't get that much pleasure from me. I might be Canadian, and the USA might be my neighbor to the south, but I could care less for them as a general populous, personally speaking.
Are you fucking stupid?!?! How on earth can you really think that a genepool can inflict a nation this heavily? Society is definite by culture and education, not what my fucking granddad did or didn´t do. That doesn´t affect me at all. And btw what do you think your ancestors came from?! That´s right, Europe. Fuck your genepool! And next time you do "some fact checking" : Hitler wasn´t elected, but i´m not really suprised by that seeing your last posts. And on the whole debate, we just had a really nice event here in cologne where we have an annual concert against racism and intolerance and freakin´ 80000 people showed up, last anti-nazi demo i went we were 15000 against 100 neo-nazis. Tell that your fucking genepool and get some education!
User was temp banned for this post.
tempban, really? Sure, he had some bad language, but in this thread are lots of posts with equally bad language and a lot of posts who are just racist, but not get banned...
But he is right. At every nazi demonstration there are at least like ten times as many people rallying against nazis/racism. I am not a racist. Maybe my grand-grand-dad was? I don't know and i don't care. Please don't judge me on something i have never done.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
Im actually just playing devils advocate.
My brother and I were having a good debate the other night about what should have happened to Germany after World War 2 and the happenings of war with that country. We did some fact checking etc etc, and were actually surprised to see how strong a military a country like Germany has, considering its historic past. We were surprised that the deaths of literally millions at the hand of a single country really didn't affect their future since the war, especially since early 1990. I actually played the opposite roll in that argument. But my brother did make some very good points, which are in this thread already. What somewhat put me on the edge decisiviley, was an argument that the current genepool of Germany, is from the populous which survived the war. The people that stood by and watched, doing nothing, as millions of people were exterminated. That actually elected by a massive majority the leadership and future they chose, and the slaugter that followed. That did nothing as the concentration camps within eye sight burned trainedloads of people. These people are the genetic makup which is the current german citizen. As much as I argued around it, it was a standing point which was fact. It happened, there were survivors, and those survivors lived on, procreated, and 2 and 3 generations later is where they are genetically.
Now, I see your post was an attempt to poke at Americans, their war efforts and involvements, etc etc, in an effort to frustrate or infuriate me. You won't get that much pleasure from me. I might be Canadian, and the USA might be my neighbor to the south, but I could care less for them as a general populous, personally speaking.
I did some fact checking myself and came up with different "facts". That leads me to the conclusion that you and your brother are either A) bad at "checking facts" B) stupid as fuck C) drunk while having that conversation D) talking out of your ass E) combination of the above
I also think i dont reveal a big secret here when i tell you that your statement about "the genetic makup which is the current german citizen" is not only reaching new undiscovered levels of stupidity but also highly insulting to any german citizen that takes your massive pile of shit, that you call a forumpost, serious.
I dont quite understand how he didnt get a warning/ban for spreading so much stupidity and ignorance.
I also wonder what kind of statement qualifies as "rechtsextremes Denken" (extreme right-wing thinking) because that seems like its an intentional generalization to get the percentage of "nazis" up as far as possible. Because there are not 9% of the population voting for the NPD.
This is kinda REALLY offtopic, but I was always curious what a simulation would look like of the world if Hitler had of won the war... Maybe technology would have advanced faster due to less ethics and a lower population all at the loss of humanity. As morbid as that is, I always find it incredibly interesting to think of scenarios like this. (IE what if Rome never fell)
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
Im actually just playing devils advocate.
My brother and I were having a good debate the other night about what should have happened to Germany after World War 2 and the happenings of war with that country. We did some fact checking etc etc, and were actually surprised to see how strong a military a country like Germany has, considering its historic past. We were surprised that the deaths of literally millions at the hand of a single country really didn't affect their future since the war, especially since early 1990. I actually played the opposite roll in that argument. But my brother did make some very good points, which are in this thread already. What somewhat put me on the edge decisiviley, was an argument that the current genepool of Germany, is from the populous which survived the war. The people that stood by and watched, doing nothing, as millions of people were exterminated. That actually elected by a massive majority the leadership and future they chose, and the slaugter that followed. That did nothing as the concentration camps within eye sight burned trainedloads of people. These people are the genetic makup which is the current german citizen. As much as I argued around it, it was a standing point which was fact. It happened, there were survivors, and those survivors lived on, procreated, and 2 and 3 generations later is where they are genetically.
Now, I see your post was an attempt to poke at Americans, their war efforts and involvements, etc etc, in an effort to frustrate or infuriate me. You won't get that much pleasure from me. I might be Canadian, and the USA might be my neighbor to the south, but I could care less for them as a general populous, personally speaking.
I did some fact checking myself and came up with different "facts". That leads me to the conclusion that you and your brother are either A) bad at "checking facts" B) stupid as fuck C) drunk while having that conversation D) talking out of your ass E) combination of the above
I also think i dont reveal a big secret here when i tell you that your statement about "the genetic makup which is the current german citizen" is not only reaching new undiscovered levels of stupidity but also highly insulting to any german citizen that takes your massive pile of shit, that you call a forumpost, serious.
I dont quite understand how he didnt get a warning/ban for spreading so much stupidity and ignorance.
I also wonder what kind of statement qualifies as "rechtsextremes Denken" (extreme right-wing thinking) because that seems like its an intentional generalization to get the percentage of "nazis" up as far as possible. Because there are not 9% of the population voting for the NPD.
You'll probably tag along with a warning/ban for being so pretentious. Calm down and state your points, we've all got frustrated at stupidity (and at points been there being mistaken) but there's no reason to get so geared up over it.
What the EU and depopulation companies like Mosantos are doing are no different from what Hitler did. Uniting Europe and killing off the aging population. Yet Hitler got all the blame for it.
At least Hitler liberated the third world countries by weakening Europe. Colonial nations like Britain, France, and the Netherlands werent any better since they were invaders themselves.
On November 14 2012 00:19 oneofthem wrote: i don't know if i am interested in answering your questions if you somehow miss the point of post ww2 education so badly. let those who see judge.
but you are wrong in your one substantial assertion. a condemnation of an act does not necessarily have to appeal to mental state at all, a mere egregious consequence of the act is enough. this certainly works on the level of what the nazis did.
for instance, if communists were well intended and still 'caused' 200m deaths, then that's bad. it speaks badly about at least a kind of communism that would let that slide.
You really need to be more graceful: when someone dismisses your argument it's not necessarily because they miss the point. I could go into nit-picking, because the historiography of Nazism in public consciousness is an evolving thing. There is properly speaking, no such thing as "Post-WW2 education" even when it comes to the moral assessment of the Nazi period in Germany. But by going into minutiae I would forget that you prefer the virtues of a fact-free discussion.
No one has said that we need to fundamentally reset our evaluation of Libice or Babi Yar. You can legitimately feel a reaction of revulsion in your native conscience and yet be ignorant as to the essence of the evil that was done to people. That spiritual contact with "malheur" is a kind of blind contact with moral truth that does not yield to categorical imperatives or rationalisations of natural law. At the bottom it is a laudable instinct which is corrupted by ignoring your own experiences and trying to force it into the public battleground where it can only triumph through violence and power. By that I do not merely mean a kind of physical, but also moral coercion which takes place in the German education system today. It is transferring by counterfeit a sense of right and wrong which normal, young Germans neither feel, touch, see nor hear. They are merely numbed by the repetitive aesops, the bland simplifications, the imbalanced treatment of German history and are ultimately reduced to either obedience or revolt. From the latter group you have the sprouting of neo-Nazis and Nazi apologists.
As people can perceive from my first post here, I was primarily lamenting the destruction of pre-Nazi German history by the overwhelming teleological perspective now favoured in academia when looking at the German Belle Epoque or even German Romantic literature. This is sustained by the erroneous belief that we can somehow improve our ideals by "learning from history." The only things we learn from history are how to distort our behaviour sufficiently to be blind to the next lesson.
On November 14 2012 00:51 NeMeSiS3 wrote: This is kinda REALLY offtopic, but I was always curious what a simulation would look like of the world if Hitler had of won the war... Maybe technology would have advanced faster due to less ethics and a lower population all at the loss of humanity. As morbid as that is, I always find it incredibly interesting to think of scenarios like this. (IE what if Rome never fell)
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
Im actually just playing devils advocate.
My brother and I were having a good debate the other night about what should have happened to Germany after World War 2 and the happenings of war with that country. We did some fact checking etc etc, and were actually surprised to see how strong a military a country like Germany has, considering its historic past. We were surprised that the deaths of literally millions at the hand of a single country really didn't affect their future since the war, especially since early 1990. I actually played the opposite roll in that argument. But my brother did make some very good points, which are in this thread already. What somewhat put me on the edge decisiviley, was an argument that the current genepool of Germany, is from the populous which survived the war. The people that stood by and watched, doing nothing, as millions of people were exterminated. That actually elected by a massive majority the leadership and future they chose, and the slaugter that followed. That did nothing as the concentration camps within eye sight burned trainedloads of people. These people are the genetic makup which is the current german citizen. As much as I argued around it, it was a standing point which was fact. It happened, there were survivors, and those survivors lived on, procreated, and 2 and 3 generations later is where they are genetically.
Now, I see your post was an attempt to poke at Americans, their war efforts and involvements, etc etc, in an effort to frustrate or infuriate me. You won't get that much pleasure from me. I might be Canadian, and the USA might be my neighbor to the south, but I could care less for them as a general populous, personally speaking.
I did some fact checking myself and came up with different "facts". That leads me to the conclusion that you and your brother are either A) bad at "checking facts" B) stupid as fuck C) drunk while having that conversation D) talking out of your ass E) combination of the above
I also think i dont reveal a big secret here when i tell you that your statement about "the genetic makup which is the current german citizen" is not only reaching new undiscovered levels of stupidity but also highly insulting to any german citizen that takes your massive pile of shit, that you call a forumpost, serious.
I dont quite understand how he didnt get a warning/ban for spreading so much stupidity and ignorance.
I also wonder what kind of statement qualifies as "rechtsextremes Denken" (extreme right-wing thinking) because that seems like its an intentional generalization to get the percentage of "nazis" up as far as possible. Because there are not 9% of the population voting for the NPD.
You'll probably tag along with a warning/ban for being so pretentious. Calm down and state your points, we've all got frustrated at stupidity (and at points been there being mistaken) but there's no reason to get so geared up over it.
I really wonder how you would react if someone made stuff up, calls it a fact and presents it in a way that makes your whole country look like its people are descendants from cowards, psychophats and racists.
My points were that his post is almost completely wrong and insulting and that this study seems to treat right-wing thinking as a pretty broad term to get high numbers and attract more readers. Also the idea that there isnt done enough against racism and national socialism in germany is ridiculous as some people have pointed out already. Sadly it doesnt look like we (as in every country) will ever get rid off this extreme right-wing scum.
On November 14 2012 01:10 Reason wrote: "The only things we learn from history are how to distort our behaviour sufficiently to be blind to the next lesson."
Please explain in depth because that sounds absolutely terrible.
The lesson Great Britain learned from the July crisis of 1914 was that much bloodshed could have been spared if the governments had behaved less rashly, played less brinkmanship and allowed the calmer spirit of compromise to reign.
This lesson was erroneously applied in October 1938 in Munich.
The lesson Great Britain learned from appeasement was that dictators must be challenged and preferably strangled in the crib, via pre-emptive action.
That lesson was erroneously applied in October 1956 in the Suez.
Please do not misinterpret me when I say that "lessons of history" do not exist. I am a historian, and I place great value on the study of history. What I will say is that learning history as a whole gives you greater insight into the complexities of human nature, and allows you to exercise better judgement. However to gift wrap and package certain episodes as fundamental doctrines, to pretend that understanding history gives you any ability to understand the future, is one of the greatest fallacies of historical analysis.
On November 14 2012 00:51 NeMeSiS3 wrote: This is kinda REALLY offtopic, but I was always curious what a simulation would look like of the world if Hitler had of won the war... Maybe technology would have advanced faster due to less ethics and a lower population all at the loss of humanity. As morbid as that is, I always find it incredibly interesting to think of scenarios like this. (IE what if Rome never fell)
On November 14 2012 00:44 Scio wrote:
On November 13 2012 12:05 Grimmyman123 wrote:
On November 13 2012 11:40 m4inbrain wrote:
On November 13 2012 11:28 Grimmyman123 wrote:
On November 13 2012 07:45 Blackfeather wrote:
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
Im actually just playing devils advocate.
My brother and I were having a good debate the other night about what should have happened to Germany after World War 2 and the happenings of war with that country. We did some fact checking etc etc, and were actually surprised to see how strong a military a country like Germany has, considering its historic past. We were surprised that the deaths of literally millions at the hand of a single country really didn't affect their future since the war, especially since early 1990. I actually played the opposite roll in that argument. But my brother did make some very good points, which are in this thread already. What somewhat put me on the edge decisiviley, was an argument that the current genepool of Germany, is from the populous which survived the war. The people that stood by and watched, doing nothing, as millions of people were exterminated. That actually elected by a massive majority the leadership and future they chose, and the slaugter that followed. That did nothing as the concentration camps within eye sight burned trainedloads of people. These people are the genetic makup which is the current german citizen. As much as I argued around it, it was a standing point which was fact. It happened, there were survivors, and those survivors lived on, procreated, and 2 and 3 generations later is where they are genetically.
Now, I see your post was an attempt to poke at Americans, their war efforts and involvements, etc etc, in an effort to frustrate or infuriate me. You won't get that much pleasure from me. I might be Canadian, and the USA might be my neighbor to the south, but I could care less for them as a general populous, personally speaking.
I did some fact checking myself and came up with different "facts". That leads me to the conclusion that you and your brother are either A) bad at "checking facts" B) stupid as fuck C) drunk while having that conversation D) talking out of your ass E) combination of the above
I also think i dont reveal a big secret here when i tell you that your statement about "the genetic makup which is the current german citizen" is not only reaching new undiscovered levels of stupidity but also highly insulting to any german citizen that takes your massive pile of shit, that you call a forumpost, serious.
I dont quite understand how he didnt get a warning/ban for spreading so much stupidity and ignorance.
I also wonder what kind of statement qualifies as "rechtsextremes Denken" (extreme right-wing thinking) because that seems like its an intentional generalization to get the percentage of "nazis" up as far as possible. Because there are not 9% of the population voting for the NPD.
You'll probably tag along with a warning/ban for being so pretentious. Calm down and state your points, we've all got frustrated at stupidity (and at points been there being mistaken) but there's no reason to get so geared up over it.
I really wonder how you would react if someone made stuff up, calls it a fact and presents it in a way that makes your whole country look like its people are descendants from cowards, psychophats and racists.
My points were that his post is almost completely wrong and insulting and that this study seems to treat right-wing thinking as a pretty broad term to get high numbers and attract more readers. Also the idea that there isnt done enough against racism and national socialism in germany is ridiculous as some people have pointed out already. Sadly it doesnt look like we (as in every country) will ever get rid off this extreme right-wing scum.
As I said previously, take a calmer tone or it'll probably be moderated. Not many people call Canada anything but Americans get heat all the time for stereotypes like fat and stupid/ignorant. It's best to let the idiots banter on about what they think is rather then what actually is. No one educated actually thinks Germany is in anyway returning to a NAZI mentality nor do they constitute 9% as NAZI supporters/affiliates etc or think the genes have anything to do with it.
You're not wrong, he's saying really off the wall things but theres no reason to stoop to his level.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
Past history of conflicts? You should try a little closer to home if you want a real history of conflicts.
Edit: And before accepting the unification the allies wanted a clear declaration that Germany stays in the nato and doesnt become a demilitarized neutral state. From wiki: In December 1989, the administration of President George H. W. Bush made a united Germany's continued NATO membership a requirement for supporting reunification. Kohl agreed, although less than 20% of West Germans supported remaining within NATO
closer to home? do tell.
Nato you post - why Germany as part of Nato? So the rest of Nato can keep eyes on Germany so if need be, Nato can keep Germany under its thumb like a bug.
The problem is your statements are completely ignorant. Germany is much further from being ruled by some extremists than US is. Germany has no way of any military action against its neighbours. You know that they have two nuclear powers just around the corner. And Germany is not nuclear power. Their military spending is pitiful compared to other countries. Plus allies pretty much demanded remilitarization from Germany, no the other way around. Also you seem to have missed last 50 years of history, maybe you should educate yourself before you start your knee-jerk reactions.
Au contrair. You need to do your fact checking.
German military spending, over 40 Billion (B as in Butter). Compare to your nation with a puny less than 2 Billion. Like the Czech would stand a chance if Germany decided to invade, nuclear power or not. What a feeble argument you make, so easily crushed. Read my former post again. Germany spends more than nearly all its direct neighbors. COMBINED. France is the only exception ot the rule and throws the balance out of wack. If Germany wanted to take a few battalions and squadrons, and go for a march through Czech and through Poland then back home, there isnt sweet all those two countries could do about it other than be a bit of a pest with thier meager 2.5 and 9.1 Billion in military spending to Germany's 43B. They'd slow down the German stroll through the park, but not stop it, not even close.
Do you really know nothing about real world politics ? Yes, if Germany decided to attack Czech and Poland (no matter that Poland could actually put up a fight) you are saying that no country would say squat and let Germany do what they wanted ? Unlike you I am living close to Germany and I can tell you that nobody cares. You seem to have forgot last 60 years of European history, the whole EU, NATO thing. Plus the fact that war would be disastrous for Germany, they have nothing to gain even if noone opposed them.
As for your nonsensical numbers, Germany spends less per capita on army than 90+% countries on Earth. They actually spend less than Czech Republic and much less than Poland.
But anyway, your scenarios are about as realistic hidden Nazi base on the moon.
By that I do not merely mean a kind of physical, but also moral coercion which takes place in the German education system today
to decide this empirical question i'd have to know what precise historical distortions or imbalances you are talking about and show that these distortions are the result of distorted presentation rather than the gravity of the nazi situation, by the magnitude of the event itself, has a large footprint.
in any case, given most charitable facts, nobody is hereby saying that a clear eyed account of history is not important. it is just that any clear eyed examination of history will also feature the lesson of a moral politics in order to resist the powerful human drives of national and racial hatred and narrative. still, the cost benefit of presenting the best account of history that highlights the lessons (it really is a lesson for all humanity not merely germans) is heavily leaning towards value building.
i don't care if retarded teenagers think it's cool to defend hitler because history books neglected to mention a couple years of full employment. i really don't care.
your claim is most charitably one about moral fatigue and the way of combating that. maybe to show the fuller picture and pierce the self claimed facts ignored that give neonazis some kind of bubble of ignored reality. it is maybe a problem tackled by people dealing with cults or conspiracy theorists. not really a big problem for the general aim of moral education.
the less charitable interpretation, perhaps a factually stronger one, is that you are projecting your own unbalanced view of history and the resentment you feel against the entire oppressive ideological structure encountered at skool.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
Im actually just playing devils advocate.
My brother and I were having a good debate the other night about what should have happened to Germany after World War 2 and the happenings of war with that country. We did some fact checking etc etc, and were actually surprised to see how strong a military a country like Germany has, considering its historic past. We were surprised that the deaths of literally millions at the hand of a single country really didn't affect their future since the war, especially since early 1990. I actually played the opposite roll in that argument. But my brother did make some very good points, which are in this thread already. What somewhat put me on the edge decisiviley, was an argument that the current genepool of Germany, is from the populous which survived the war. The people that stood by and watched, doing nothing, as millions of people were exterminated. That actually elected by a massive majority the leadership and future they chose, and the slaugter that followed. That did nothing as the concentration camps within eye sight burned trainedloads of people. These people are the genetic makup which is the current german citizen. As much as I argued around it, it was a standing point which was fact. It happened, there were survivors, and those survivors lived on, procreated, and 2 and 3 generations later is where they are genetically.
Now, I see your post was an attempt to poke at Americans, their war efforts and involvements, etc etc, in an effort to frustrate or infuriate me. You won't get that much pleasure from me. I might be Canadian, and the USA might be my neighbor to the south, but I could care less for them as a general populous, personally speaking.
That is really funny because your rhetoric is basically the same as nazi rhetoric. They were also big on genetic traits of other nations and were drawing stupid conclusions from them. The reality is much darker, people of all nations are capable of the same things that happened in Germany in WW2. And you really did not do a good job with your research, otherwise you would know that Germany was basically forced to rearm itself by the allies.
What allies did after the war with Germany was pretty close to ideal.
On November 13 2012 15:24 Mallard86 wrote: Europe has been leaning to the left heavily for quite some time. Its only natural that there be some backlash especially when things arent going well. Of course, its hardly neo-nazism just like "far" left ideologies are hardly communism. Its just a branding by the left influenced moderates and leftists to demonize any sort of right movements.
Europe is pretty much in the center, not to the left. Current economic troubles cause rise to both right and left wing extremist movements.
On November 14 2012 01:10 Reason wrote: "The only things we learn from history are how to distort our behaviour sufficiently to be blind to the next lesson."
Please explain in depth because that sounds absolutely terrible.
The lesson Great Britain learned from the July crisis of 1914 was that much bloodshed could have been spared if the governments had behaved less rashly, played less brinkmanship and allowed the calmer spirit of compromise to reign.
This lesson was erroneously applied in October 1938 in Munich.
The lesson Great Britain learned from appeasement was that dictators must be challenged and preferably strangled in the crib, via pre-emptive action.
That lesson was erroneously applied in October 1956 in the Suez.
Please do not misinterpret me when I say that "lessons of history" do not exist. I am a historian, and I place great value on the study of history. What I will say is that learning history as a whole gives you greater insight into the complexities of human nature, and allows you to exercise better judgement. However to gift wrap and package certain episodes as fundamental doctrines, to pretend that understanding history gives you any ability to understand the future, is one of the greatest fallacies of historical analysis.
On November 13 2012 15:30 oneofthem wrote: i always am curious why nazis hate jews. what's the basis for this idea?
After we lost in WW1 Hitler - who was in the army during that time - and others tried to blame others for the loss. There was the "Dolchstosslegende" (that we would have won, but the home front gave up and thus stabbed the glorious military in the back) and Hitler just came up with the jews. That has stuck since then and it is easy to do ... just blame a jew for everything bad that is happening to you is an easy escape. Now its the foreign workers stealing the jobs btw., because "jews" would be too obvious.
So the core is "blame others and dont look accept that life can be tough". It is the same with all the conspiracy theories (about UFOs or 9/11) ... some people cant accept the fact that "bad things can happen without anyone being responsible for them OR that you can make mistakes (like misjudging the strength of your military OR missing the signs for an attack by AlQaeda)". Shit happens sometimes ....
Hate of the Jews dates far back into medieval period. They were different and separated themselves socially so they were a good scapegoat for anything bad. Plus they killed Jesus of course. Nazis (and communists, and Polish, and .....) just used that existing sentiment.
On November 13 2012 15:53 Mallard86 wrote: Jews have been a scapegoat for centuries. The only reason anti-antisemitism has died down in the west over the last few decades is because of the growth of PC as well as a collective guilt/pity over the Holocaust.
The question is why are Jews so hated over the centuries? The answer is relatively simple. In the west, most communities have been homogenous. You live in a catholic town or you live in a protestant town. Jews are kind of separate from the communities due to different religion and thus different assemblies and traditions. Being separate or different has historically been a liability.
There may be some carry-over of historical Judeophobia into modern anti-semitism, but anyone with a basic understanding of the intellectual history of modern Germany will find the Goldhagen thesis untenable. There is a world of difference between traditional anti-Jewish feeling of the villages, the synthecist debates during the Jewish enlightenment from a C.W. von Dohm, and national-folkish anti-semitism of a Wilhelm Marr.
Categorising people like the Nazis as exploiting traditional Catholic prejudices about Jews is as unhistorical as you can get.
Anyone claiming to have read Mein Kampf will easily recognise the distinction Hitler makes when recounting the crystallisation of his own anti-semitism:
To-day it is hard and almost impossible for me to say when the word 'Jew' first began to raise any particular thought in my mind. I do not remember even having heard the word at home during my father's lifetime. If this name were mentioned in a derogatory sense I think the old gentleman would just have considered those who used it in this way as being uneducated reactionaries. In the course of his career he had come to be more or less a cosmopolitan, with strong views on nationalism, which had its effect on me as well. In school, too, I found no reason to alter the picture of things I had formed at home.
At the REALSCHULE I knew one Jewish boy. We were all on our guard in our relations with him, but only because his reticence and certain actions of his warned us to be discreet. Beyond that my companions and myself formed no particular opinions in regard to him.
It was not until I was fourteen or fifteen years old that I frequently ran up against the word 'Jew', partly in connection with political controversies. These references aroused a slight aversion in me, and I could not avoid an uncomfortable feeling which always came over me when I had to listen to religious disputes. But at that time I had no other feelings about the Jewish question.
There were very few Jews in Linz. In the course of centuries the Jews who lived there had become Europeanized in external appearance and were so much like other human beings that I even looked upon them as Germans. The reason why I did not then perceive the absurdity of such an illusion was that the only external mark which I recognized as distinguishing them from us was the practice of their strange religion. As I thought that they were persecuted on account of their Faith my aversion to hearing remarks against them grew almost into a feeling of abhorrence. I did not in the least suspect that there could be such a thing as a systematic anti-Semitism.
Then I came to Vienna.
Confused by the mass of impressions I received from the architectural surroundings and depressed by my own troubles, I did not at first distinguish between the different social strata of which the population of that mammoth city was composed. Although Vienna then had about two hundred thousand Jews among its population of two millions, I did not notice them. During the first weeks of my sojourn my eyes and my mind were unable to cope with the onrush of new ideas and values. Not until I gradually settled down to my surroundings, and the confused picture began to grow clearer, did I acquire a more discriminating view of my new world. And with that I came up against the Jewish problem.
I will not say that the manner in which I first became acquainted with it was particularly unpleasant for me. In the Jew I still saw only a man who was of a different religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I was against the idea that he should be attacked because he had a different faith. And so I considered that the tone adopted by the anti-Semitic Press in Vienna was unworthy of the cultural traditions of a great people. The memory of certain events which happened in the middle ages came into my mind, and I felt that I should not like to see them repeated. Generally speaking, these anti-Semitic newspapers did not belong to the first rank--but I did not then understand the reason of this--and so I regarded them more as the products of jealousy and envy rather than the expression of a sincere, though wrong-headed, feeling.
Not any of the top Nazis fit the old-fashioned profile of the anti-semite, and many did not even fit the profile of the biological determinist. Hitler said it himself: the Jews are a race of the spirit, not of the flesh.
That is one of the elemental problems addressed by my previous intrusion into the argument. That people, due to the Nazi past, are united and determined to resist the proliferation of anti-semitism, it is clear. Unfortunately, they don't really understand what they are trying to resist. Hence not only the historical, but also the moral feebleness of their efforts.
That argument makes no sense. There is no need for nazi leadership to be influenced by historical anti-semitism for their success to convince general population to be attributable to it. Or that they even willingly used those historical sentiments.
On November 14 2012 01:10 Reason wrote: "The only things we learn from history are how to distort our behaviour sufficiently to be blind to the next lesson."
Please explain in depth because that sounds absolutely terrible.
The lesson Great Britain learned from the July crisis of 1914 was that much bloodshed could have been spared if the governments had behaved less rashly, played less brinkmanship and allowed the calmer spirit of compromise to reign.
This lesson was erroneously applied in October 1938 in Munich.
The lesson Great Britain learned from appeasement was that dictators must be challenged and preferably strangled in the crib, via pre-emptive action.
That lesson was erroneously applied in October 1956 in the Suez.
Please do not misinterpret me when I say that "lessons of history" do not exist. I am a historian, and I place great value on the study of history. What I will say is that learning history as a whole gives you greater insight into the complexities of human nature, and allows you to exercise better judgement. However to gift wrap and package certain episodes as fundamental doctrines, to pretend that understanding history gives you any ability to understand the future, is one of the greatest fallacies of historical analysis.
Then how do you suggest we proceed?
first recognize the moral feebleness of the effort to call nazis bad, of course.
On November 13 2012 15:30 oneofthem wrote: i always am curious why nazis hate jews. what's the basis for this idea?
After we lost in WW1 Hitler - who was in the army during that time - and others tried to blame others for the loss. There was the "Dolchstosslegende" (that we would have won, but the home front gave up and thus stabbed the glorious military in the back) and Hitler just came up with the jews. That has stuck since then and it is easy to do ... just blame a jew for everything bad that is happening to you is an easy escape. Now its the foreign workers stealing the jobs btw., because "jews" would be too obvious.
So the core is "blame others and dont look accept that life can be tough". It is the same with all the conspiracy theories (about UFOs or 9/11) ... some people cant accept the fact that "bad things can happen without anyone being responsible for them OR that you can make mistakes (like misjudging the strength of your military OR missing the signs for an attack by AlQaeda)". Shit happens sometimes ....
Hate of the Jews dates far back into medieval period. They were different and separated themselves socially so they were a good scapegoat for anything bad. Plus they killed Jesus of course. Nazis (and communists, and Polish, and .....) just used that existing sentiment.
It's a sentiment that was at least tolerated in wide parts of Europe at the time (especially in the UK Aristocracy). Sadly, in Germany a group of Fascists without any morals came into power, and they used it for a (at the time) unparalleled genocide.
To people saying Fascism is solely a German thing, and it's in our "genes". Check this out:
It's an experiment done by a US teacher in a high school. He basically showed that NO ONE is immune to the appeal of fascism. I remember reading the book about this experiment in school, there was also at least one film about this.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
Im actually just playing devils advocate.
My brother and I were having a good debate the other night about what should have happened to Germany after World War 2 and the happenings of war with that country. We did some fact checking etc etc, and were actually surprised to see how strong a military a country like Germany has, considering its historic past. We were surprised that the deaths of literally millions at the hand of a single country really didn't affect their future since the war, especially since early 1990. I actually played the opposite roll in that argument. But my brother did make some very good points, which are in this thread already. What somewhat put me on the edge decisiviley, was an argument that the current genepool of Germany, is from the populous which survived the war. The people that stood by and watched, doing nothing, as millions of people were exterminated. That actually elected by a massive majority the leadership and future they chose, and the slaugter that followed. That did nothing as the concentration camps within eye sight burned trainedloads of people. These people are the genetic makup which is the current german citizen. As much as I argued around it, it was a standing point which was fact. It happened, there were survivors, and those survivors lived on, procreated, and 2 and 3 generations later is where they are genetically.
Now, I see your post was an attempt to poke at Americans, their war efforts and involvements, etc etc, in an effort to frustrate or infuriate me. You won't get that much pleasure from me. I might be Canadian, and the USA might be my neighbor to the south, but I could care less for them as a general populous, personally speaking.
Are you fucking stupid?!?! How on earth can you really think that a genepool can inflict a nation this heavily? Society is definite by culture and education, not what my fucking granddad did or didn´t do. That doesn´t affect me at all. And btw what do you think your ancestors came from?! That´s right, Europe. Fuck your genepool! And next time you do "some fact checking" : Hitler wasn´t elected, but i´m not really suprised by that seeing your last posts. And on the whole debate, we just had a really nice event here in cologne where we have an annual concert against racism and intolerance and freakin´ 80000 people showed up, last anti-nazi demo i went we were 15000 against 100 neo-nazis. Tell that your fucking genepool and get some education!
User was temp banned for this post.
tempban, really? Sure, he had some bad language, but in this thread are lots of posts with equally bad language and a lot of posts who are just racist, but not get banned...
But he is right. At every nazi demonstration there are at least like ten times as many people rallying against nazis/racism. I am not a racist. Maybe my grand-grand-dad was? I don't know and i don't care. Please don't judge me on something i have never done.
I agree that Grimmyman123 was provoked pretty heavily. Blackfeather basically said "I'm afraid of the Germans, they're still the monsters that stood by watching people get slaughtered" while saying "Oh, those people next to us that actually all but extinguished an entire people and went to war with other nations under false pretenses multiple times in the last 50 years, no, those I'm not worried about".
The term "Uprising" is so blatantly wrong, that i don't find this worthy of discussion until the correct tone has been introduced by the opening statement.
On November 14 2012 02:04 TigerKarl wrote: The term "Uprising" is so blatantly wrong, that i don't find this worthy of discussion until the correct tone has been introduced by the opening statement.
wow this thread is going in the wrong direction pretty sure!
The numbers are alarming thats for sure! And the big disparity between west and east is also a bad sign for our society. The high numbers in the east are no suprise if you take a close look on the actuall state (unemployment rate) and the newer History (GDR/Reunion). Right ideas also undermine slowly a broughter part of the society thats maybe a reason for the high numbers!
And if you compare how many Germans call dem selfs Nationalists with people from other european Countrys you will be suprised. Most Germans aren´t Nationalists ore even Patriots at all! Untill WM 2006 it wasn´t even possible to put out a german Flag. And evan today you will see those only if the German soccer team is playing.
So i think the fact that the numbers are rising is concerning but for sure we don´t have to build a FUCKING WALL around Germany to protect the rest of the World.
Edit: tryed to fix spelling (sry for my bad english)
How is Germany not allowed too be strong again? How we are not allowed too be Patriotic again? u say Germany should be basicly a dust state? and u pull that off by saying "Ohh our Genpool is the same as the guys who stood there and let that happen" how stupid is this? our decissions are not binded with our Genpool lol. Yes im german Yes im patriotic and Yes i love my Country im i a Nazi now?....
I just said that what actually Millions of Germans think but they are too afraid to say it in public.
On November 14 2012 02:24 quaZa wrote: @Blackfeather
How is Germany not allowed too be strong again? How we are not allowed too be Patriotic again? u say Germany should be basicly a dust state? and u pull that off by saying "Ohh our Genpool is the same as the guys who stood there and let that happen" how stupid is this? our decissions are not binded with our Genpool lol. Yes im german Yes im patriotic and Yes i love my Country im i a Nazi now?....
I just said that what actually Millions of Germans think but they are too afraid to say it in public.
On November 14 2012 02:04 TigerKarl wrote: The term "Uprising" is so blatantly wrong, that i don't find this worthy of discussion until the correct tone has been introduced by the opening statement.
Well gee thanks for letting us know anyway!
I was totally looking out of my window fully expecting to see the Nazis rise up!
On November 14 2012 02:24 quaZa wrote: @Blackfeather
How is Germany not allowed too be strong again? How we are not allowed too be Patriotic again? u say Germany should be basicly a dust state? and u pull that off by saying "Ohh our Genpool is the same as the guys who stood there and let that happen" how stupid is this? our decissions are not binded with our Genpool lol. Yes im german Yes im patriotic and Yes i love my Country im i a Nazi now?....
I just said that what actually Millions of Germans think but they are too afraid to say it in public.
I find the combination of spelling and sentiment quite interesting to be honest.
By that I do not merely mean a kind of physical, but also moral coercion which takes place in the German education system today
to decide this empirical question i'd have to know what precise historical distortions or imbalances you are talking about and show that these distortions are the result of distorted presentation rather than the gravity of the nazi situation, by the magnitude of the event itself, has a large footprint.
in any case, given most charitable facts, nobody is hereby saying that a clear eyed account of history is not important. it is just that any clear eyed examination of history will also feature the lesson of a moral politics in order to resist the powerful human drives of national and racial hatred and narrative. still, the cost benefit of presenting the best account of history that highlights the lessons (it really is a lesson for all humanity not merely germans) is heavily leaning towards value building.
i don't care if retarded teenagers think it's cool to defend hitler because history books neglected to mention a couple years of full employment. i really don't care.
your claim is most charitably one about moral fatigue and the way of combating that. maybe to show the fuller picture and pierce the self claimed facts ignored that give neonazis some kind of bubble of ignored reality. it is maybe a problem tackled by people dealing with cults or conspiracy theorists. not really a big problem for the general aim of moral education.
the less charitable interpretation, perhaps a factually stronger one, is that you are projecting your own unbalanced view of history and the resentment you feel against the entire oppressive ideological structure encountered at skool.
nice going but don't get lost.
You see, the tragedy is that I rather sympathise with oneofthem. Like him, I am a rather intuitive, speculative person. Like him, I like to throw things out there and see how they float in the court of public life. I don't know that I take myself as seriously as he does, but for me, nurturing this irresponsible misuse of the mind is a guilty pleasure, not a thing I'd be proud to proliferate unto my children in the guise of "value building" or what have you.
Hence statements like
the less charitable interpretation, perhaps a factually stronger one, is that you are projecting your own unbalanced view of history and the resentment you feel against the entire oppressive ideological structure encountered at skool.
I would recognise in my verbal arsenal easily, but for one minute difference. I would have replaced with "less charitable and factually stronger" with "less charitable and factually baseless," which indeed it is. I will say one thing for him: he is more charitable towards the Nazis than he is towards me. To the Nazis he is willing to eschew the attribution of motives and say that it doesn't matter, they were evil because of what they did. Towards me, whom he has to strike in the face (I am reminded of the story whereby Himmler fainted when he first personally witnessed a man shot in a concentration camp) he sheathes the sword and mildly suggests that I think as I do because I am only reacting to narrow, personal circumstances.
To get some matters straight:
-I am not resentful of the oppressive ideological structure encountered at skool.
-I am not projecting any view of history, unless he thinks that any view of history which does not subject all facts to ideological interpretation is to skew the truth.
-He seem to think that a (the?) aim of history is "moral education." I will neither affirm nor deny this notion, but he seems to misunderstand the entire trick of what an moral education is. As Jiminy Cricket says in Pinocchio: it's the thing that tells you what seems to be good is bad, and what seems to be bad is good. Saying that Nazis were bad because they did bad things is not a moral education. Moral education demands that we show the inherent evil behind all the positive things the Nazis seemed to represent to their people. As Maupassant says of the proper use of history, it is "to compel us to reflect, and to understand the darker and deeper meaning behind events."
-If old-fashioned anti-semitism, national and racial hate were the values that the Nazis represented at their core, they would have been no danger at all, and therefore not worthy of notice in the consideration of ethics or otherwise.
-In the case of Hitler, as a object example, his racism except in the case of the Jews was not much more extreme than typical Victorian notions about the world. He was largely indifferent to and contemptuous of blacks, admired the Japanese and Chinese in some ways, saw in Islam a more compelling and vital religion than Christianity, and at various moments in his life, expressed admiration for such friends and foes as the British, the Greeks, the Finns, the Russians, the Americans, the Italians. It is arguable that Hitler's anti-semitism was racially-based. At the end of his life several of his statements contradict the notion. Certainly the Weltanschauung which Hitler possessed bears no resemblance to say, the views of a modern Stormfront agitator against Obama.
-The nature of hate requires sustained and unyielding discipline, a quality which he himself does not possess and Hitler did in abundance. If it came down to a contest of wills (a value which Hitler placed above race, religion or even ideology), oneofthem would be meekly squeeking heil by 1934
-Thinking that Hitler's popularity is directly linked to his ability to produce full employment in Germany is to miss the appeal he produced throughout German society on a more fundamental level. (By 1938 suicide rates in Germany had dropped 80%, marriage and birth rates at post-war highs.) Admiration of not only his economic achievements (which Hitler himself did not worry to much about) but social ones are not merely views held by "stupid kids" that can be brushed away with the wave of a hand. It requires a well-informed and discerning mind to argue the point that even in the sunny, prosperous days of the mid-30s, there was something rotten in the state of Denmark.
-The argument is that rather than confronting these troublesome matters, most people are today encouraged to brush them under the rug. Nazi doctrine was obviously evil. Mein Kampf is a garrulous bile of philosophical gibberish. Hitler was a madman with an insane ideology. If I were there I would have seen matters for what is really was thanks to my advanced moral education. Like I said: In reality oneofthem joins the Nazi party by 1934.
Then how do you suggest we proceed?
By "we" do you mean yourself, the world, or something in between? As much as I love to pontificate upon matters of the Weltgeist, I would never trust myself with the reigns of responsibility or power, except in circles in which I slowly graduate to them. There's an odd illusion shared among troublemakers that because you have good intentions and some good ideas you deserve to have any influence in the world. I'm afraid I can't give you much insight into the imperatives of life apart from repeating some old cliches- read more, try to gain more experience, be polite, have good manners, be courteous, be a good son to your parents and father to your children, etc. If you can achieve any of that in our troubled age, it will already be a small victory for humanity. Far more useful I assure you, than becoming the species of drama queens known as armchair moralists who generally outgrow their energy by the mid-20s anyhow.
That argument makes no sense. There is no need for nazi leadership to be influenced by historical anti-semitism for their success to convince general population to be attributable to it. Or that they even willingly used those historical sentiments.
I have no idea what this means, since the sentence needs editing. I think mcc means: whereas the Nazi leadership subscribed to modern, and idealistic incarnations of anti-semitism, it does not follow that they did not exploit the latent religious anti-semitism among the German people.
The only thing to say to this is: if they did, it did not rise to the levels of expressed Nazi doctrine, and was therefore socially irrelevant. Traditional anti-semitism, even in the fin de siecle was a dying phenomenon in Germany and Austria. As Hitler attests in Mein Kampf, by 1900 such anti-semitic views were regarded as parochial and low-brow even among provincial people. It still existed to a great extent where Jewish emancipation occurred later, where the Jews were less integrated or where they still mostly subscribed to the Conservative or Orthodox branches of Judaism, such as in Poland or Russia. However the majority of German Jews were well-integrated, Reformed Jews who had become not only socially, but sometimes physically indistinguishable from ordinary Germans. This was what the Historian Heinrich von Treischke feared as the intrusion of the Jewish spirit outwardly mascaraing as assimilated Germans within an emancipated hybrid society.
It's also really a lot of bunk to suggest à la Goldhagen that the Nazis merely brought out some inherent atavistic anti-semitism latent in German society. During the war, the most virulent expressions of anti-semitism and what was happening to the Jews was suppressed and unspoken, even in private meetings among the top echelons of the Nazi leadership. Anyone who mentioned the word Dachau (and Dachau was not even a Jewish camp) in the presence of Hitler at Berchtesgaden would become persona non grata there.
I largely accept the conclusion that the German population as a whole in the interbellum was not radically more anti-semitic than other Western European countries. Germany was probably the centre of Intellectual anti-semitism, but as a whole its population were considerably less anti-semitic than the peoples of Russia, the Ukraine, Poland or Romania.
"germany shouldn't be allowed to have a big military , because they are genetically identical to their grandfathers" is probably the most stupid and at the same time ironical statement made in this thread so far, because that's pretty much kind of nazi-ideological.
just a little thought: our genes didn't change significantly over the last few thousand years but our societies and worldviews changed like a hundred-times over that time period. What does that imply?
the amount of vexation is usually correlated to the length of the response. still, the proposition that moral sanctions against nazis by the mere label is pretty good still stands.
Sorry that i write fast and English isnt my mother language god i hate idiots like u so much.
Das Englisch nicht deine Muttersprache ist entschuldigt wohl kaum dass Du dir nicht die Mühe machen kannst anständig zu schreiben. Soviel Zeit muss einfach sein!
User was warned for this post
EDIT to appease the angry gods: I was saying that English not being his first language is no excuse to not spell-check. As an ironic gesture I was saying it in German, seeing how it is my first language too. Too clever for my own good, it seems ;-)
A lot of posts I haven't read, but racism isn't something that's found in the genes among certain ethnic groups. That's just silly. Most if not all cultures have suffered from more or less widespread racism. That said, racism is a human thing, not a genetic one, something which pretty much everyone is capable of, only the circumstances determines how badly it affects a nation. That's my firm belief. In the last two or so years, as the economic situation has been unstable, I've seen people express opinions I thought died with the nazis, and that in Sweden although we got one of the best economies in Europe atm. From what I can tell the situation in Greece for instance is far worse, and apparently it's pretty bad in Germany aswell.
Trying to discard racism as something only other "races" are capable of is, ironically, borderline racist itself. IMO the only way to combat racism is to take further steps towards a civilized world, and I think that's done through education. The education level is, together with economic stability, probably what's most important if we wanna move forward instead of backwards.
On November 14 2012 03:18 oneofthem wrote: yes, i am a nazi. any questions.
the amount of vexation is usually correlated to the length of the response. still, the proposition that moral sanctions against nazis by the mere label is pretty good still stands.
Nah, you're whatever circumstances and opportunity force you to be due to lack of energy and will. That's why you're a potential fellow-travelling Nazi, rather than a leading one like Hitler, Goebbels or Hess. There was a day when the uppity fantasist had to match their verbal extroversion with physical exertion (or, by the age of Gladstone, at least ride around in a train cart.) Nowadays we can do the rabble-rousing from a keyboard, and that's why any great movement in the past 2000 years will rip our little armies to shreds.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
Im actually just playing devils advocate.
My brother and I were having a good debate the other night about what should have happened to Germany after World War 2 and the happenings of war with that country. We did some fact checking etc etc, and were actually surprised to see how strong a military a country like Germany has, considering its historic past. We were surprised that the deaths of literally millions at the hand of a single country really didn't affect their future since the war, especially since early 1990. I actually played the opposite roll in that argument. But my brother did make some very good points, which are in this thread already. What somewhat put me on the edge decisiviley, was an argument that the current genepool of Germany, is from the populous which survived the war. The people that stood by and watched, doing nothing, as millions of people were exterminated. That actually elected by a massive majority the leadership and future they chose, and the slaugter that followed. That did nothing as the concentration camps within eye sight burned trainedloads of people. These people are the genetic makup which is the current german citizen. As much as I argued around it, it was a standing point which was fact. It happened, there were survivors, and those survivors lived on, procreated, and 2 and 3 generations later is where they are genetically.
Now, I see your post was an attempt to poke at Americans, their war efforts and involvements, etc etc, in an effort to frustrate or infuriate me. You won't get that much pleasure from me. I might be Canadian, and the USA might be my neighbor to the south, but I could care less for them as a general populous, personally speaking.
Are you fucking stupid?!?! How on earth can you really think that a genepool can inflict a nation this heavily? Society is definite by culture and education, not what my fucking granddad did or didn´t do. That doesn´t affect me at all. And btw what do you think your ancestors came from?! That´s right, Europe. Fuck your genepool! And next time you do "some fact checking" : Hitler wasn´t elected, but i´m not really suprised by that seeing your last posts. And on the whole debate, we just had a really nice event here in cologne where we have an annual concert against racism and intolerance and freakin´ 80000 people showed up, last anti-nazi demo i went we were 15000 against 100 neo-nazis. Tell that your fucking genepool and get some education!
User was temp banned for this post.
This guy deserves a medal not a temp ban. Grimmyman123 is basically calling Germans genetically determined massmurders. Not even Hitler himself made such horrendous generalized statements.
I am all for a certain humilty when it comes to a national sentiment in Germany and it's good that most germans accept the responsibility which comes from our past but that doesn't mean that I should have to read such stupid bullshit and see people getting banned when they get mad about that.
On November 13 2012 06:09 Grimmyman123 wrote: The solution is simple, and it was done 67 years ago, but it was not maintained.
Demilitarize Germany like we did at the end of World War 2. Maintain and enforce a zero military policy. We didn't learn the first time after World War 1 and allowed germany to rearm itself, and look what happened. If Germany is allowed to be run by some radical group again, with their current military, its a problem.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
After World War 1, and then World War 2, we should have learned. There should not have been a wall dividing Germany. There should have been a wall surrounding it.
So, that way it doesnt matter who leads Germany or what their views are. Let them scwabble among themselves.
(Yes, I know this is an extreme point of view and is not wholy realistic due to the need for a country to be able to defend itself. However, the statistics and numbers are a bit frightening when it comes to Germany's military budget, military size, and the country's past history of conflicts.)
your comment is quite racist on a side note. and according to wikipedia germany's military budget is 1,3% of their gdp, less budget than both france's or the united kingdom's, while germany's gdp is about 50% higher. btw if you isolate germany now the european market it will outright collapse.
As for isolating Germany, I don't think that they would care if the rest of europe has hard times. Yes, economy will take a dump, thats a given, globally. But, that's to be expected and could be worked around. Germany does not contain a natural resourse stockpile, with natural minerals and uranium as its main resourses, along with grown crops, at least that could not be offset globally. Meaning, Germany isnt the supplier of its surrounding countries with critical natural resources.
Your post wasn't racist. But borderline stupid. Germany had a history of wars, right. But to hear from a canadian (a neighbor of, lol, the US) that he is "frightened" of our military.. Yeah, wow. Btw, guess what nation had the most wars in the last 200 years (including a fair share of war crimes). Oh, and then look how much they still spend on military. And keep in mind that they're actually a nation with nuclear capabilities.
What a bunch of bullshit, seriously. Even if the right wing would suddenly take over in germany, which actually does not happen at all, a war as aggressor against poland, czech? With france and the UK (you know, nuclear weapons and stuff) directly next to us.. God, i can't really fathom how stupid someone has to be to actually think there are any possibilities to have that scenario.
Im actually just playing devils advocate.
My brother and I were having a good debate the other night about what should have happened to Germany after World War 2 and the happenings of war with that country. We did some fact checking etc etc, and were actually surprised to see how strong a military a country like Germany has, considering its historic past. We were surprised that the deaths of literally millions at the hand of a single country really didn't affect their future since the war, especially since early 1990. I actually played the opposite roll in that argument. But my brother did make some very good points, which are in this thread already. What somewhat put me on the edge decisiviley, was an argument that the current genepool of Germany, is from the populous which survived the war. The people that stood by and watched, doing nothing, as millions of people were exterminated. That actually elected by a massive majority the leadership and future they chose, and the slaugter that followed. That did nothing as the concentration camps within eye sight burned trainedloads of people. These people are the genetic makup which is the current german citizen. As much as I argued around it, it was a standing point which was fact. It happened, there were survivors, and those survivors lived on, procreated, and 2 and 3 generations later is where they are genetically.
Now, I see your post was an attempt to poke at Americans, their war efforts and involvements, etc etc, in an effort to frustrate or infuriate me. You won't get that much pleasure from me. I might be Canadian, and the USA might be my neighbor to the south, but I could care less for them as a general populous, personally speaking.
Are you fucking stupid?!?! How on earth can you really think that a genepool can inflict a nation this heavily? Society is definite by culture and education, not what my fucking granddad did or didn´t do. That doesn´t affect me at all. And btw what do you think your ancestors came from?! That´s right, Europe. Fuck your genepool! And next time you do "some fact checking" : Hitler wasn´t elected, but i´m not really suprised by that seeing your last posts. And on the whole debate, we just had a really nice event here in cologne where we have an annual concert against racism and intolerance and freakin´ 80000 people showed up, last anti-nazi demo i went we were 15000 against 100 neo-nazis. Tell that your fucking genepool and get some education!
User was temp banned for this post.
This guy deserves a medal not a temp ban. Blackfeather is basically calling Germans genetically determined massmurders. Not even Hitler himself made such horrendous generalized statements.
I am all for a certain humilty when it comes to a national sentiment in Germany and it's good that most germans accept the responsibility which comes from our past but that doesn't mean that I should have to read such stupid bullshit and see people getting banned when they get mad about that.
Blackfeather is innocent (and pointed out that we have a pretty low per capita military spending), the braindead racist is Grimmyman123, I believe you slipped a line while looking for the name in the spoilered quote
How did the OP remain unchanged for so long when so many posts call it out for being badly written when it's about a topic like this? Kinda disappointing.
On November 14 2012 04:17 SilentchiLL wrote: How did the OP remain unchanged for so long when so many posts call it out for being badly written when it's about a topic like this? Kinda disappointing.
true, the sources are very bad too. Sometimes I just feel like people want Germany to be nazi...
On November 13 2012 15:30 oneofthem wrote: i always am curious why nazis hate jews. what's the basis for this idea?
After we lost in WW1 Hitler - who was in the army during that time - and others tried to blame others for the loss. There was the "Dolchstosslegende" (that we would have won, but the home front gave up and thus stabbed the glorious military in the back) and Hitler just came up with the jews. That has stuck since then and it is easy to do ... just blame a jew for everything bad that is happening to you is an easy escape. Now its the foreign workers stealing the jobs btw., because "jews" would be too obvious.
So the core is "blame others and dont look accept that life can be tough". It is the same with all the conspiracy theories (about UFOs or 9/11) ... some people cant accept the fact that "bad things can happen without anyone being responsible for them OR that you can make mistakes (like misjudging the strength of your military OR missing the signs for an attack by AlQaeda)". Shit happens sometimes ....
Hate of the Jews dates far back into medieval period. They were different and separated themselves socially so they were a good scapegoat for anything bad. Plus they killed Jesus of course. Nazis (and communists, and Polish, and .....) just used that existing sentiment.
It's a sentiment that was at least tolerated in wide parts of Europe at the time (especially in the UK Aristocracy). Sadly, in Germany a group of Fascists without any morals came into power, and they used it for a (at the time) unparalleled genocide.
To people saying Fascism is solely a German thing, and it's in our "genes". Check this out:
It's an experiment done by a US teacher in a high school. He basically showed that NO ONE is immune to the appeal of fascism. I remember reading the book about this experiment in school, there was also at least one film about this.
This film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Welle They should this film to us back in gymnasium when we were still being taught german. It is a very interesting film and i would encourage anyone to watch it.
Poverty always lead to those extreme cases, not that I'm saying germany is poor it's the richest country in europe, but it's still being affected by the rest of europe. IMHO migratory flux + unemployed citzens will always lead to this kind of stuff if u refer to why Hitler ascended it's because he promised every single german would have job not because he would kill all the jews ....
On November 14 2012 02:24 quaZa wrote: @Blackfeather
How is Germany not allowed too be strong again? How we are not allowed too be Patriotic again? u say Germany should be basicly a dust state? and u pull that off by saying "Ohh our Genpool is the same as the guys who stood there and let that happen" how stupid is this? our decissions are not binded with our Genpool lol. Yes im german Yes im patriotic and Yes i love my Country im i a Nazi now?....
I just said that what actually Millions of Germans think but they are too afraid to say it in public.
I agree with you, its so unfair that our generation of germans is not allowed to do the same mistakes as the previous generations. I mean, our generation has not killed 6 million jews......... yet...
And nobody lets us have some fun with our national pride. I mean you cant even say it anymore.... except for every sentences that starts with "you cant even say that anymore". And there are evil ppl everywhere calling us nazis.
If you didnt get that, it was sarcasm. The thing is, nobody is calling you a nazi, why would anyone. I picked your quote because I wanted to show how many germans get in the defensive just because there is a topic about a report that shows that more ppl in germany believe in nazi ideology compared to 2010. Instead of discussing the topic, most germans here try to push it as far away as possible. And I start to wonder what concerns me more, the report or this behavior.
On November 14 2012 04:31 noD wrote: Poverty always lead to those extreme cases, not that I'm saying germany is poor it's the richest country in europe, but it's still being affected by the rest of europe. IMHO migratory flux + unemployed citzens will always lead to this kind of stuff if u refer to why Hitler ascended it's because he promised every single german would have job not because he would kill all the jews ....
There are regions in eastern Germany that are pretty poor, with very high numbers of unemployment, and those are the regions that have high approval ratings for right ideology. That's why there has been a special tax for the last 20 years, to transfer money from the West to the East with the purpose of trying to increase living conditions and infrastructure. This is also one of the reasons why there are not many people here exactly thrilled to transfer money to the mediterranean states in the fiscal crisis, but that's another topic.
On November 14 2012 02:24 quaZa wrote: @Blackfeather
How is Germany not allowed too be strong again? How we are not allowed too be Patriotic again? u say Germany should be basicly a dust state? and u pull that off by saying "Ohh our Genpool is the same as the guys who stood there and let that happen" how stupid is this? our decissions are not binded with our Genpool lol. Yes im german Yes im patriotic and Yes i love my Country im i a Nazi now?....
I just said that what actually Millions of Germans think but they are too afraid to say it in public.
I wanted to show how many germans get in the defensive just because there is a topic about a report that shows that more ppl in germany believe in nazi ideology compared to 2010....
And I start to wonder what concerns me more, the report or this behavior.
We are not "in the defensive" "just because there is a topic about some report". We are angry theres a topic saying "Nazi Uprising in Present Germany", which contains a "report" which is misleading to say the least.
Noone in here tried to deny there isnt any right people or nazis in germany. And now again, no! effing! way! are 9 % of people in germany as right as the report claims.
Anyone who either: A: lives in Germany and sets a foot out of the door more than once a month B: Doesnt blindly believe everything he hears and checks the actual study in detail C: Tracks voting results in Germany more than twice every decade or so
knows those 9 % are exaggerated.
You know whats concerning? People blindly believing stuff without thinking on their own. Has led to stupid mistakes in the past i heard.
On November 14 2012 04:31 noD wrote: Poverty always lead to those extreme cases, not that I'm saying germany is poor it's the richest country in europe, but it's still being affected by the rest of europe. IMHO migratory flux + unemployed citzens will always lead to this kind of stuff if u refer to why Hitler ascended it's because he promised every single german would have job not because he would kill all the jews ....
Not disputing unemployment, but if anything eastern Germany shows that the number of migrants is not directly connected to the rise of right wing thinking. The "new states" (as the former GDR is commenly refered to) has a signfificantly lower percentage of migrants to the general population then western Germany. Yet it is eastern Germany where the far right seems to prosper.
It probably has more to do with the lack of entrenched democratic thought and structure combined with what is pretty much a systematic crisis of the capitalistic system then how many actual foreign (or foreign looking) people are in tne region.
On November 14 2012 04:31 noD wrote: Poverty always lead to those extreme cases, not that I'm saying germany is poor it's the richest country in europe, but it's still being affected by the rest of europe. IMHO migratory flux + unemployed citzens will always lead to this kind of stuff if u refer to why Hitler ascended it's because he promised every single german would have job not because he would kill all the jews ....
There are regions in eastern Germany that are pretty poor, with very high numbers of unemployment, and those are the regions that have high approval ratings for right ideology. That's why there has been a special tax for the last 20 years, to transfer money from the West to the East with the purpose of trying to increase living conditions and infrastructure. This is also one of the reasons why there are not many people here exactly thrilled to transfer money to the mediterranean states in the fiscal crisis, but that's another topic.
Well perhaps not that much of another topic, sending a good chunk of money for a country that might never pay you back might inspire some people to go right wings too, no ?
On November 13 2012 12:05 Grimmyman123 wrote: [...] What somewhat put me on the edge decisiviley, was an argument that the current genepool of Germany, is from the populous which survived the war. [...] These people are the genetic makup which is the current german citizen. [...]
I can't believe someone argues like this in a thread like this. This guy essentially follows the Nazis' theory that people's values, norms, culture, and behavior were based on their genetics and implicitly suggests that today's German population was genetically determined to be supporting mass murderers. The entire notion of people's abstract values and norms being determined by genetics is not only factually wrong, but also builds on exactly the same inhuman notion as the social Darwinism of the Third Reich.
It's a little odd to have to write something like this in a thread warning of a Nazi uprising, however: No, the Nazis' theories were NOT right. People's thoughts and behaviors are NOT determined by their genetics. This was not true with regard to Jews and this is not true with regard to any other ethical group.
The german government and law is far to lenient with nazis. They are allowed to parade they even get police protection, I mean WTF ? These people should be put in jail and their leaders deserve worse. Only a dead Nazi is a good Nazi but people have learned nothing and they wont.
On November 14 2012 02:24 quaZa wrote: @Blackfeather
How is Germany not allowed too be strong again? How we are not allowed too be Patriotic again? u say Germany should be basicly a dust state? and u pull that off by saying "Ohh our Genpool is the same as the guys who stood there and let that happen" how stupid is this? our decissions are not binded with our Genpool lol. Yes im german Yes im patriotic and Yes i love my Country im i a Nazi now?....
I just said that what actually Millions of Germans think but they are too afraid to say it in public.
I wanted to show how many germans get in the defensive just because there is a topic about a report that shows that more ppl in germany believe in nazi ideology compared to 2010....
And I start to wonder what concerns me more, the report or this behavior.
We are not "in the defensive" "just because there is a topic about some report". We are angry theres a topic saying "Nazi Uprising in Present Germany", which contains a "report" which is misleading to say the least.
Noone in here tried to deny there isnt any right people or nazis in germany. And now again, no! effing! way! are 9 % of people in germany as right as the report claims.
Anyone who either: A: lives in Germany and sets a foot out of the door more than once a month B: Doesnt blindly believe everything he hears and checks the actual study in detail C: Tracks voting results in Germany more than twice every decade or so
knows those 9 % are exaggerated.
You know whats concerning? People blindly believing stuff without thinking on their own. Has led to stupid mistakes in the past i heard.
its a study. so its just classification of their answers. if people have 2nd thoughts about immigrants they might easily be counted towards those 9% and even lack of education can show up in there(downplaying ww2/holocaust).
and honsestly, if we now call evryone thats not 100% positive towards immigrants a nazi then damn, the whole world is filled with nazis.
plus in the end as long as i see there are 100x as much people at evry nazi demonstration that try to stop it i dont see a big problem. also its pretty much only in poor/high unemployment rate areas in east germany where its that bad.
On November 14 2012 05:01 Holy_AT wrote: The german government and law is far to lenient with nazis. They are allowed to parade they even get police protection, I mean WTF ? These people should be put in jail and their leaders deserve worse. Only a dead Nazi is a good Nazi but people have learned nothing and they wont.
thats the price of freedom and free speech. its the same for evryone ,even total idiots.
On November 14 2012 05:01 Holy_AT wrote: The german government and law is far to lenient with nazis. They are allowed to parade they even get police protection, I mean WTF ? These people should be put in jail and their leaders deserve worse. Only a dead Nazi is a good Nazi but people have learned nothing and they wont.
Maybe you're being sarcastic or exaggerating, but don't you see the irony here?
If I were to put on my dreaming cap, I would go on a limb and say that there is something about Germany which makes it different from other countries in their susceptibility to radical views. If you look at Germany in comparison to other countries like Austria, Hungary, Italy, France or Greece, anti-Nazism is here most strictly, diligently and stalwartly fortified in the minds and hearts of the people. Contrary to the inferences of the OP, in Germany the "Extreme Right" is less likely to come to power than any of the aforementioned countries. This is partially because of the vulgarity of non-conformist politics, and a widespread longing in Germany for socially respectable opinions.
Hitler understood this after the 1923 Putsch, when otherwise sympathetic members of the Bavarian State police obeyed their orders and opened fire on the ranks of the SA. It proved to Hitler that the widespread sympathy for his cause in Munich did not go so far as to act out against the proclaimed organs of political legitimacy.
After his release from prison he abandoned trying to pull off his own "March on Rome," and looked to overthrow the Weimar Republic through legitimate means. Part of this went into developing his oratory, his personal manners, his presentation to respectable social circles. He also knew how to accentuate parts of his programme which were respectable: nationalism, anti-marxism, freedom and equality for Germany among nations, repudiation of German war guilt. Values which would carry with them not only the collaboration of much of the conservative-nationalist vote, but much of the working class as well. He knew how weak and flimsy the moral authority of the Weimar Republic was, yet he understood how strong the devotion to legitimacy of the German people was, that the final moves which could probably have stopped him would have been the restoration of the Hohenzollern Monarchy before 1933, and the restoration of the Habsburgs (which Schuschnigg attempted to carry out at the 11th hour) in Austria.
It's this same devotion to legitimate and respectable opinions which prevent what is publicly excoriated as radicalism from ever coming to power in Germany. A silent shift in values may occur, latent natural feelings of patriotism may reawaken after decades of neglect, but the ultimate stability of the German vehicle remains the same. Can a Machiavellian genius like Hitler still play the system to destruction from within? It is much more difficult now than in 1933. The Federal Republic of Germany has the great advantage over its Weimar Predecessor, in that after 60 years of existence, most of those who were born under values not shaped by the Federal Republic are dying out if not already dead. The exception to this is in Eastern Germany, and the historical absence of the BRD may be an even stronger factor behind the emergence of radical politics there than the economic situation.
On November 14 2012 02:24 quaZa wrote: @Blackfeather
How is Germany not allowed too be strong again? How we are not allowed too be Patriotic again? u say Germany should be basicly a dust state? and u pull that off by saying "Ohh our Genpool is the same as the guys who stood there and let that happen" how stupid is this? our decissions are not binded with our Genpool lol. Yes im german Yes im patriotic and Yes i love my Country im i a Nazi now?....
I just said that what actually Millions of Germans think but they are too afraid to say it in public.
I wanted to show how many germans get in the defensive just because there is a topic about a report that shows that more ppl in germany believe in nazi ideology compared to 2010....
And I start to wonder what concerns me more, the report or this behavior.
We are not "in the defensive" "just because there is a topic about some report". We are angry theres a topic saying "Nazi Uprising in Present Germany", which contains a "report" which is misleading to say the least.
Noone in here tried to deny there isnt any right people or nazis in germany. And now again, no! effing! way! are 9 % of people in germany as right as the report claims.
Anyone who either: A: lives in Germany and sets a foot out of the door more than once a month B: Doesnt blindly believe everything he hears and checks the actual study in detail C: Tracks voting results in Germany more than twice every decade or so
knows those 9 % are exaggerated.
You know whats concerning? People blindly believing stuff without thinking on their own. Has led to stupid mistakes in the past i heard.
its a study. so its just classification of their answers. if people have 2nd thoughts about immigrants they might easily be counted towards those 9% and even lack of education can show up in there(downplaying ww2/holocaust).
and honsestly, if we now call evryone thats not 100% positive towards immigrants a nazi then damn, the whole world is filled with nazis.
plus in the end as long as i see there are 100x as much people at evry nazi demonstration that try to stop it i dont see a big problem. also its pretty much only in poor/high unemployment rate areas in east germany where its that bad.
yeh thats exactly my point/opinion, if you realise the 9 % are only a classification of their answers, then the study is no cause to be really troubled about, as the guy i quoted said he is.
A lot of people, especially not from germany, actually think those 9 % are far right oriented people, as can be seen in the replies
On November 14 2012 02:24 quaZa wrote: @Blackfeather
How is Germany not allowed too be strong again? How we are not allowed too be Patriotic again? u say Germany should be basicly a dust state? and u pull that off by saying "Ohh our Genpool is the same as the guys who stood there and let that happen" how stupid is this? our decissions are not binded with our Genpool lol. Yes im german Yes im patriotic and Yes i love my Country im i a Nazi now?....
I just said that what actually Millions of Germans think but they are too afraid to say it in public.
I wanted to show how many germans get in the defensive just because there is a topic about a report that shows that more ppl in germany believe in nazi ideology compared to 2010....
And I start to wonder what concerns me more, the report or this behavior.
We are not "in the defensive" "just because there is a topic about some report". We are angry theres a topic saying "Nazi Uprising in Present Germany", which contains a "report" which is misleading to say the least.
Noone in here tried to deny there isnt any right people or nazis in germany. And now again, no! effing! way! are 9 % of people in germany as right as the report claims.
Anyone who either: A: lives in Germany and sets a foot out of the door more than once a month B: Doesnt blindly believe everything he hears and checks the actual study in detail C: Tracks voting results in Germany more than twice every decade or so
knows those 9 % are exaggerated.
You know whats concerning? People blindly believing stuff without thinking on their own. Has led to stupid mistakes in the past i heard.
I guess you havent read the report, because the report never claims what you say, so never did I.
I wish the op would have made a direkt link to the actual paper, cause it only lists the answers and statistics given by the questioning they made.
Is is that hard to believe that around 9% of the german population has racist thoughts about immigrants, when books like "Deutschland schafft sich ab" and "Neuköln ist überall" are the number 1 bestsellers for such a long time?
And I never said its the end of the world, but the fact is, the FES makes this study every 2 years and the numbers are growing (even if clearly they are not even near to a dangerous level for democracy).
But even at a low level a growing number of racism and fascism should be concerning, doesnt it?
On November 14 2012 05:11 MoltkeWarding wrote: If I were to put on my dreaming cap, I would go on a limb and say that there is something about Germany which makes it different from other countries in their susceptibility to radical views. If you look at Germany in comparison to other countries like Austria, Hungary, Italy, France or Greece, anti-Nazism is here most strictly, diligently and stalwartly fortified in the minds and hearts of the people. Contrary to the inferences of the OP, in Germany the "Extreme Right" is less likely to come to power than any of the aforementioned countries. This is partially because of the vulgarity of non-conformist politics, and a widespread longing in Germany for socially respectable opinions.
Hitler understood this after the 1923 Putsch, when otherwise sympathetic members of the Bavarian State police obeyed their orders and opened fire on the ranks of the SA. It proved to Hitler that the widespread sympathy for his cause in Munich did not go so far as to act out against the proclaimed organs of political legitimacy.
After his release from prison he abandoned trying to pull off his own "March on Rome," and looked to overthrow the Weimar Republic through legitimate means. Part of this went into developing his oratory, his personal manners, his presentation to respectable social circles. He also knew how to accentuate parts of his programme which were respectable: nationalism, anti-marxism, freedom and equality for Germany among nations, repudiation of German war guilt. Values which would carry with them not only the collaboration of much of the conservative-nationalist vote, but much of the working class as well. He knew how weak and flimsy the moral authority of the Weimar Republic was, yet he understood how strong the devotion to legitimacy of the German people were, that the final moves which could probably have stopped him would have been the restoration of the Hohenzollern Monarchy before 1933, and the restoration of the Habsburgs (which Schuschnigg attempted to carry out at the 11th hour) in Austria.
It's this same devotion to legitimate and respectable opinions which prevent what is publicly excoriated as radicalism from ever coming to power in Germany. A silent shift in values may occur, latent natural feelings of patriotism may reawaken after decades of neglect, but the ultimate stability of the German vehicle remains the same. Can a Machiavellian genius like Hitler still play the system to destruction from within? It is much more difficult now than in 1933. The Federal Republic of Germany has the great advantage over its Weimar Predecessor, in that after 60 years of existence, most of those who were born under values not shaped by the Federal Republic are dying out if not already dead. The exception to this is in Eastern Germany, and the historical absence of the BRD may be an even stronger factor behind the emergence of radical politics there than the economic situation.
Wow this guy knows his shit!
Are you studying History? For sure you know more about Germany history than 90 % of the Germans.
And you really din´t miss a point in this Discussion.
On November 14 2012 05:18 Pasargadae wrote: What's wrong with anti-Islam? (yes, I'm aware this question misses the entire point at hand)
Problem is neither parties actually want to debate or change their view point based on a democratic discussion process. If one party assumes that their assumption is absolute and unchanging then there is no point engaging in activity to the contrary unless by force and conflict. The problem with anti-Islamic movement is that it promotes violent actions on both sides, unless BOTH parties are willing to progress there is no point.
On November 14 2012 05:11 MoltkeWarding wrote: If I were to put on my dreaming cap, I would go on a limb and say that there is something about Germany which makes it different from other countries in their susceptibility to radical views. If you look at Germany in comparison to other countries like Austria, Hungary, Italy, France or Greece, anti-Nazism is here most strictly, diligently and stalwartly fortified in the minds and hearts of the people. Contrary to the inferences of the OP, in Germany the "Extreme Right" is less likely to come to power than any of the aforementioned countries. This is partially because of the vulgarity of non-conformist politics, and a widespread longing in Germany for socially respectable opinions.
Hitler understood this after the 1923 Putsch, when otherwise sympathetic members of the Bavarian State police obeyed their orders and opened fire on the ranks of the SA. It proved to Hitler that the widespread sympathy for his cause in Munich did not go so far as to act out against the proclaimed organs of political legitimacy.
After his release from prison he abandoned trying to pull off his own "March on Rome," and looked to overthrow the Weimar Republic through legitimate means. Part of this went into developing his oratory, his personal manners, his presentation to respectable social circles. He also knew how to accentuate parts of his programme which were respectable: nationalism, anti-marxism, freedom and equality for Germany among nations, repudiation of German war guilt. Values which would carry with them not only the collaboration of much of the conservative-nationalist vote, but much of the working class as well. He knew how weak and flimsy the moral authority of the Weimar Republic was, yet he understood how strong the devotion to legitimacy of the German people were, that the final moves which could probably have stopped him would have been the restoration of the Hohenzollern Monarchy before 1933, and the restoration of the Habsburgs (which Schuschnigg attempted to carry out at the 11th hour) in Austria.
It's this same devotion to legitimate and respectable opinions which prevent what is publicly excoriated as radicalism from ever coming to power in Germany. A silent shift in values may occur, latent natural feelings of patriotism may reawaken after decades of neglect, but the ultimate stability of the German vehicle remains the same. Can a Machiavellian genius like Hitler still play the system to destruction from within? It is much more difficult now than in 1933. The Federal Republic of Germany has the great advantage over its Weimar Predecessor, in that after 60 years of existence, most of those who were born under values not shaped by the Federal Republic are dying out if not already dead. The exception to this is in Eastern Germany, and the historical absence of the BRD may be an even stronger factor behind the emergence of radical politics there than the economic situation.
Wow this guy knows his shit!
Are you studying History? For sure you know more about Germany history than 90 % of the Germans.
And you really din´t miss a point in this Discussion.
I am impressed!
Don't +1 a comment then fill it with more generalizations like "90% of the Germans" ._.
On November 14 2012 05:01 Holy_AT wrote: The german government and law is far to lenient with nazis. They are allowed to parade they even get police protection, I mean WTF ? These people should be put in jail and their leaders deserve worse. Only a dead Nazi is a good Nazi but people have learned nothing and they wont.
That's not what I heard, although I might be wrong since I'm not German. What I've heard is that there are anti-nazi laws in Germany, for instance it's a crime to publicly display the swastika symbol. Or am I wrong?
If so, Germany has laws that quite severely is limiting the freedom of speech, more so than most other democratic nations. The criticism I've encountered so far is that Germany is going to far in limiting the freedom of speech, never that they are not going far enough. Perhaps you don't understand the problems involved in limiting that basic right.
On November 14 2012 05:11 MoltkeWarding wrote: If I were to put on my dreaming cap, I would go on a limb and say that there is something about Germany which makes it different from other countries in their susceptibility to radical views. If you look at Germany in comparison to other countries like Austria, Hungary, Italy, France or Greece, anti-Nazism is here most strictly, diligently and stalwartly fortified in the minds and hearts of the people. Contrary to the inferences of the OP, in Germany the "Extreme Right" is less likely to come to power than any of the aforementioned countries. This is partially because of the vulgarity of non-conformist politics, and a widespread longing in Germany for socially respectable opinions.
Hitler understood this after the 1923 Putsch, when otherwise sympathetic members of the Bavarian State police obeyed their orders and opened fire on the ranks of the SA. It proved to Hitler that the widespread sympathy for his cause in Munich did not go so far as to act out against the proclaimed organs of political legitimacy.
After his release from prison he abandoned trying to pull off his own "March on Rome," and looked to overthrow the Weimar Republic through legitimate means. Part of this went into developing his oratory, his personal manners, his presentation to respectable social circles. He also knew how to accentuate parts of his programme which were respectable: nationalism, anti-marxism, freedom and equality for Germany among nations, repudiation of German war guilt. Values which would carry with them not only the collaboration of much of the conservative-nationalist vote, but much of the working class as well. He knew how weak and flimsy the moral authority of the Weimar Republic was, yet he understood how strong the devotion to legitimacy of the German people were, that the final moves which could probably have stopped him would have been the restoration of the Hohenzollern Monarchy before 1933, and the restoration of the Habsburgs (which Schuschnigg attempted to carry out at the 11th hour) in Austria.
It's this same devotion to legitimate and respectable opinions which prevent what is publicly excoriated as radicalism from ever coming to power in Germany. A silent shift in values may occur, latent natural feelings of patriotism may reawaken after decades of neglect, but the ultimate stability of the German vehicle remains the same. Can a Machiavellian genius like Hitler still play the system to destruction from within? It is much more difficult now than in 1933. The Federal Republic of Germany has the great advantage over its Weimar Predecessor, in that after 60 years of existence, most of those who were born under values not shaped by the Federal Republic are dying out if not already dead. The exception to this is in Eastern Germany, and the historical absence of the BRD may be an even stronger factor behind the emergence of radical politics there than the economic situation.
Wow this guy knows his shit!
Are you studying History? For sure you know more about Germany history than 90 % of the Germans.
And you really din´t miss a point in this Discussion.
I am impressed!
Don't +1 a comment then fill it with more generalizations like "90% of the Germans" ._.
okey for sure i don´t want to offend anybody. Maybe you are a bit to strikt here. I was impressed by his knowlege. :D
On November 14 2012 05:11 MoltkeWarding wrote: If I were to put on my dreaming cap, I would go on a limb and say that there is something about Germany which makes it different from other countries in their susceptibility to radical views. If you look at Germany in comparison to other countries like Austria, Hungary, Italy, France or Greece, anti-Nazism is here most strictly, diligently and stalwartly fortified in the minds and hearts of the people. Contrary to the inferences of the OP, in Germany the "Extreme Right" is less likely to come to power than any of the aforementioned countries. This is partially because of the vulgarity of non-conformist politics, and a widespread longing in Germany for socially respectable opinions.
Hitler understood this after the 1923 Putsch, when otherwise sympathetic members of the Bavarian State police obeyed their orders and opened fire on the ranks of the SA. It proved to Hitler that the widespread sympathy for his cause in Munich did not go so far as to act out against the proclaimed organs of political legitimacy.
After his release from prison he abandoned trying to pull off his own "March on Rome," and looked to overthrow the Weimar Republic through legitimate means. Part of this went into developing his oratory, his personal manners, his presentation to respectable social circles. He also knew how to accentuate parts of his programme which were respectable: nationalism, anti-marxism, freedom and equality for Germany among nations, repudiation of German war guilt. Values which would carry with them not only the collaboration of much of the conservative-nationalist vote, but much of the working class as well. He knew how weak and flimsy the moral authority of the Weimar Republic was, yet he understood how strong the devotion to legitimacy of the German people were, that the final moves which could probably have stopped him would have been the restoration of the Hohenzollern Monarchy before 1933, and the restoration of the Habsburgs (which Schuschnigg attempted to carry out at the 11th hour) in Austria.
It's this same devotion to legitimate and respectable opinions which prevent what is publicly excoriated as radicalism from ever coming to power in Germany. A silent shift in values may occur, latent natural feelings of patriotism may reawaken after decades of neglect, but the ultimate stability of the German vehicle remains the same. Can a Machiavellian genius like Hitler still play the system to destruction from within? It is much more difficult now than in 1933. The Federal Republic of Germany has the great advantage over its Weimar Predecessor, in that after 60 years of existence, most of those who were born under values not shaped by the Federal Republic are dying out if not already dead. The exception to this is in Eastern Germany, and the historical absence of the BRD may be an even stronger factor behind the emergence of radical politics there than the economic situation.
Wow this guy knows his shit!
Are you studying History? For sure you know more about Germany history than 90 % of the Germans.
And you really din´t miss a point in this Discussion.
I am impressed!
Maybe you just had a bad history teacher, but I could have said a lot more about that and could have done it in greater detail (though I wouldn't agree with everything he wrote 100%), of course I had the history intensive course, but still, you exagerrated greatly there and shouldn't judge the rest of the population by your own knowledge or your limited experience of others about the topic...
On November 14 2012 05:11 MoltkeWarding wrote: If I were to put on my dreaming cap, I would go on a limb and say that there is something about Germany which makes it different from other countries in their susceptibility to radical views. If you look at Germany in comparison to other countries like Austria, Hungary, Italy, France or Greece, anti-Nazism is here most strictly, diligently and stalwartly fortified in the minds and hearts of the people. Contrary to the inferences of the OP, in Germany the "Extreme Right" is less likely to come to power than any of the aforementioned countries. This is partially because of the vulgarity of non-conformist politics, and a widespread longing in Germany for socially respectable opinions.
Hitler understood this after the 1923 Putsch, when otherwise sympathetic members of the Bavarian State police obeyed their orders and opened fire on the ranks of the SA. It proved to Hitler that the widespread sympathy for his cause in Munich did not go so far as to act out against the proclaimed organs of political legitimacy.
After his release from prison he abandoned trying to pull off his own "March on Rome," and looked to overthrow the Weimar Republic through legitimate means. Part of this went into developing his oratory, his personal manners, his presentation to respectable social circles. He also knew how to accentuate parts of his programme which were respectable: nationalism, anti-marxism, freedom and equality for Germany among nations, repudiation of German war guilt. Values which would carry with them not only the collaboration of much of the conservative-nationalist vote, but much of the working class as well. He knew how weak and flimsy the moral authority of the Weimar Republic was, yet he understood how strong the devotion to legitimacy of the German people were, that the final moves which could probably have stopped him would have been the restoration of the Hohenzollern Monarchy before 1933, and the restoration of the Habsburgs (which Schuschnigg attempted to carry out at the 11th hour) in Austria.
It's this same devotion to legitimate and respectable opinions which prevent what is publicly excoriated as radicalism from ever coming to power in Germany. A silent shift in values may occur, latent natural feelings of patriotism may reawaken after decades of neglect, but the ultimate stability of the German vehicle remains the same. Can a Machiavellian genius like Hitler still play the system to destruction from within? It is much more difficult now than in 1933. The Federal Republic of Germany has the great advantage over its Weimar Predecessor, in that after 60 years of existence, most of those who were born under values not shaped by the Federal Republic are dying out if not already dead. The exception to this is in Eastern Germany, and the historical absence of the BRD may be an even stronger factor behind the emergence of radical politics there than the economic situation.
Wow this guy knows his shit!
Are you studying History? For sure you know more about Germany history than 90 % of the Germans.
And you really din´t miss a point in this Discussion.
I am impressed!
Maybe you just had a bad history teacher, but I could have said a lot more about that and could have done it in greater detail (though I wouldn't agree with everything he wrote 100%), of course I had the history intensive course, but still, you exagerrated greatly there and shouldn't judge the rest of the population by your own knowledge or your limited experience of others about the topic...
c´mon guys! I got your points! Maybe i had a bad History Teacher, maybe i exagerrated a bit to much! I really din´t want to offend anybody. And i am still sure most of the Germans don´t know as much as he knows. They don´t have to.
Maybe he is wrong in some points! His posts are way way better than claiming we should build a wall around Germany because we share the same DNA with our Grandfathers o.O
Edit: @silentchill also din´t want to offend you. you are sure a part of a good educated well informed and intrested minority among us germans and u know that. :D
On November 14 2012 05:11 MoltkeWarding wrote: If I were to put on my dreaming cap, I would go on a limb and say that there is something about Germany which makes it different from other countries in their susceptibility to radical views. If you look at Germany in comparison to other countries like Austria, Hungary, Italy, France or Greece, anti-Nazism is here most strictly, diligently and stalwartly fortified in the minds and hearts of the people. Contrary to the inferences of the OP, in Germany the "Extreme Right" is less likely to come to power than any of the aforementioned countries. This is partially because of the vulgarity of non-conformist politics, and a widespread longing in Germany for socially respectable opinions.
Hitler understood this after the 1923 Putsch, when otherwise sympathetic members of the Bavarian State police obeyed their orders and opened fire on the ranks of the SA. It proved to Hitler that the widespread sympathy for his cause in Munich did not go so far as to act out against the proclaimed organs of political legitimacy.
After his release from prison he abandoned trying to pull off his own "March on Rome," and looked to overthrow the Weimar Republic through legitimate means. Part of this went into developing his oratory, his personal manners, his presentation to respectable social circles. He also knew how to accentuate parts of his programme which were respectable: nationalism, anti-marxism, freedom and equality for Germany among nations, repudiation of German war guilt. Values which would carry with them not only the collaboration of much of the conservative-nationalist vote, but much of the working class as well. He knew how weak and flimsy the moral authority of the Weimar Republic was, yet he understood how strong the devotion to legitimacy of the German people were, that the final moves which could probably have stopped him would have been the restoration of the Hohenzollern Monarchy before 1933, and the restoration of the Habsburgs (which Schuschnigg attempted to carry out at the 11th hour) in Austria.
It's this same devotion to legitimate and respectable opinions which prevent what is publicly excoriated as radicalism from ever coming to power in Germany. A silent shift in values may occur, latent natural feelings of patriotism may reawaken after decades of neglect, but the ultimate stability of the German vehicle remains the same. Can a Machiavellian genius like Hitler still play the system to destruction from within? It is much more difficult now than in 1933. The Federal Republic of Germany has the great advantage over its Weimar Predecessor, in that after 60 years of existence, most of those who were born under values not shaped by the Federal Republic are dying out if not already dead. The exception to this is in Eastern Germany, and the historical absence of the BRD may be an even stronger factor behind the emergence of radical politics there than the economic situation.
Wow this guy knows his shit!
Are you studying History? For sure you know more about Germany history than 90 % of the Germans.
And you really din´t miss a point in this Discussion.
I am impressed!
Maybe you just had a bad history teacher, but I could have said a lot more about that and could have done it in greater detail (though I wouldn't agree with everything he wrote 100%), of course I had the history intensive course, but still, you exagerrated greatly there and shouldn't judge the rest of the population by your own knowledge or your limited experience of others about the topic...
c´mon guys! I got your points! Maybe i had a bad History Teacher, maybe i exagerrated a bit to much! I really din´t want to offend anybody. And i am still sure most of the Germans don´t know as much as he knows. They don´t have to.
Maybe he is wrong in some points! His posts are way way better than claiming we should build a wall around Germany because we share the same DNA with our Grandfathers o.O
Relax man, nobody's attacking you, your statement was just a bit too harsh.
On November 14 2012 05:01 Holy_AT wrote: The german government and law is far to lenient with nazis. They are allowed to parade they even get police protection, I mean WTF ? These people should be put in jail and their leaders deserve worse. Only a dead Nazi is a good Nazi but people have learned nothing and they wont.
That's not what I heard, although I might be wrong since I'm not German. What I've heard is that there are anti-nazi laws in Germany, for instance it's a crime to publicly display the swastika symbol. Or am I wrong?
If so, Germany has laws that quite severely is limiting the freedom of speech, more so than most other democratic nations. The criticism I've encountered so far is that Germany is going to far in limiting the freedom of speech, never that they are not going far enough. Perhaps you don't understand the problems involved in limiting that basic right.
Yes and no It is forbidden (§86StGB) to publicly display politically "incorrect" symbols, and please dont quote out of context here, its about impossible to translate burocracy-german properly but let me try: "Incorrect Symbols" whose content is against the liberal democratic system or against the international understanding. Basically its forbidding you to sow hatred and wrongful thinking. But NO the freedom of speech is imo granted, unless someone obviously says or writes something "incorrect (as above)" As long as the message is not encouraging anti-religious-cultural-racial-sexual thinking or in any other way seditious.
On November 14 2012 05:01 Holy_AT wrote: The german government and law is far to lenient with nazis. They are allowed to parade they even get police protection, I mean WTF ? These people should be put in jail and their leaders deserve worse. Only a dead Nazi is a good Nazi but people have learned nothing and they wont.
The problem with the NPD is that they know what they are allowed to do and they know what they're not allowed to do. They won't do something severe publicly. Of course there's a lot of people who think the same way you do argueing "well they're not saying it but they mean it!" but what are you supposed to do? Change our juristication and put them in jail although they didn't do something against the law because we know they'd like to?
As far as I know these kinds of things happened, they went to court, the NPD won and in the end you support them that way by shoving money down their throat or giving them publicity.
Just writing this for the ever so slight offchance that you're actually not trolling. "Humour" transcribes badly via internet
I totally agree with that DNA thing. But it gets worse: there are a lot of turkish people living in germany. Their great grandfathers took part at the armenian genocide in the early 20th century. With this kind of DNA in only ONE country, I am afraid the next Holocaust could already be in preparation.
I might like to have seen a wall built around Germany if this were still the 1950s, if by wall you mean a figurative political wall rather than a literal wall.
Ever since the Molotov-Bevin meetings in 1947 there were numerous proposals floated West to the effect of mutual disengagement by the Soviet Union and the Western Powers from a neutralised, disarmed, and united Germany. None of the Western powers were interested in such a solution (excepting, temporarily, Churchill when he returned to power in '51,) and the such plans were ultimately futile. What happened thereafter is well-known: the rearmament of West Germany, the establishment of the Doppelgänger in the East, the Berlin blockade and the integration of the Germanies within the two military-blocs.
In such a scenario Germany might have served as a cordon sanitaire between East and West, much as Austria and Yugoslavia did further south. Without the military stand-off in Central-Europe, much of the imperative for the prolonged American presence in Europe, NATO, the Warsaw Pact, and the Cold War in general would have been defused. It would have been difficult, and obviously with Adenauer in Bonn and John Foster Dulles running the State Department there was no realistic chance of a deal over Germany. In more optimal political circumstances however, there might have been some real hope to an early disentanglement of Europe, with Germany leading the way.
BTW for sake of historical interest, for the historians out there, here is Harold Nicholson's account of the Molotov-Bevin meeting in London in 1947. The entire account may be abbreviated for flair, but essentially captures the complexes held by both sides on the question of what to do with Germany:
“Mr Molotov [...] what is it that you want? What are you after? Do you want to get Austria behind your iron curtain? You can't do that. Do you want Turkey and the Straits? You can't have them. Do you want Korea? You can't have that. You are putting your neck out too far, and one day you will have it chopped off...You are playing a very dangerous game...if war comes between you and America in the West, then we shall be on America's side. Make no mistake about that. That would be the end of Russia and your Revolution...What do you want?”
“I want a unified Germany,” said Molotov.
“Why do you want that? Do you really believe that a unified Germany would go communist? They might pretend to. They would say all the right things and repeat all the correct formulas. But in their hearts they would be longing for the day when they could revenge their defeat at Stalingrad. You know that as well as I do.”
“Yes,” said Molotov, “I know that. But I want a unified Germany.”
On November 14 2012 05:01 Holy_AT wrote: The german government and law is far to lenient with nazis. They are allowed to parade they even get police protection, I mean WTF ? These people should be put in jail and their leaders deserve worse. Only a dead Nazi is a good Nazi but people have learned nothing and they wont.
On November 14 2012 03:18 oneofthem wrote: yes, i am a nazi. any questions.
the amount of vexation is usually correlated to the length of the response. still, the proposition that moral sanctions against nazis by the mere label is pretty good still stands.
Nah, you're whatever circumstances and opportunity force you to be due to lack of energy and will. That's why you're a potential fellow-travelling Nazi, rather than a leading one like Hitler, Goebbels or Hess. There was a day when the uppity fantasist had to match their verbal extroversion with physical exertion (or, by the age of Gladstone, at least ride around in a train cart.) Nowadays we can do the rabble-rousing from a keyboard, and that's why any great movement in the past 2000 years will rip our little armies to shreds.
yes, someone who supports a strident anti-nazi stance, on those terms, is a nazi. the bare logic of your position is not much richer than that.
On November 14 2012 03:18 oneofthem wrote: yes, i am a nazi. any questions.
the amount of vexation is usually correlated to the length of the response. still, the proposition that moral sanctions against nazis by the mere label is pretty good still stands.
Nah, you're whatever circumstances and opportunity force you to be due to lack of energy and will. That's why you're a potential fellow-travelling Nazi, rather than a leading one like Hitler, Goebbels or Hess. There was a day when the uppity fantasist had to match their verbal extroversion with physical exertion (or, by the age of Gladstone, at least ride around in a train cart.) Nowadays we can do the rabble-rousing from a keyboard, and that's why any great movement in the past 2000 years will rip our little armies to shreds.
yes, someone who supports a strident anti-nazi stance, on those terms, is a nazi. the bare logic of your position is not much richer than that.
It doesn't matter if you don't understand the underlying futility of your position, or try to disassociate yourself via sophism and connotative manipulation. It doesn't even matter if you don't think of yourself as a Nazi. The lesson here is that you fit the moral profile of Nazism, and by labeling and sanctioning you as such, I am teaching a valuable lesson to not only Germany, but all of humanity.
As far as I know as a non-German, Streitbare Demokratie (fortified democracy) is a fairly unique system in that it partialy denies democracy to guarantee democracy. Because of this, Germany is actually the least likely country to have fascist regime like Nazi. Other countries have much higher risk political system-wise. It is debatable that such system which can outright deny the result of democratic election based on party belief is good or bad, but I personally think it is an excellent idea that not many countries adopt unfortunately. Germany learned the lesson that democracy has a deficiency: a political party that wants to deny democracy can ironically come into power through democratic means. I would rather fear Nazi or Nazi-like parties coming into power in other parts of the world. Germany is the farthest from it in my perspective. Maybe Germans in this thread can enlighten us more on this.
On November 14 2012 03:18 oneofthem wrote: yes, i am a nazi. any questions.
the amount of vexation is usually correlated to the length of the response. still, the proposition that moral sanctions against nazis by the mere label is pretty good still stands.
Nah, you're whatever circumstances and opportunity force you to be due to lack of energy and will. That's why you're a potential fellow-travelling Nazi, rather than a leading one like Hitler, Goebbels or Hess. There was a day when the uppity fantasist had to match their verbal extroversion with physical exertion (or, by the age of Gladstone, at least ride around in a train cart.) Nowadays we can do the rabble-rousing from a keyboard, and that's why any great movement in the past 2000 years will rip our little armies to shreds.
yes, someone who supports a strident anti-nazi stance, on those terms, is a nazi. the bare logic of your position is not much richer than that.
Well, it seems to me that the point was that a propensity for parroting things without reflection makes it simply a matter of historic happenstance wether you are a Nazi or not .A point well made I thought.
Even apparently self-evident truth like "Nazis are bad" become little more then articles of faith when not backed up by critical thought. After all, who is to say that the next "great leader" will not declare his enemies Nazis and send them to centralization quarters to be reeducated. Which is so much easier to do after we have been taught to mindlessly repeat "Nazis are bad" without thinking about why.
On November 14 2012 06:03 Saumure wrote: I totally agree with that DNA thing. But it gets worse: there are a lot of turkish people living in germany. Their great grandfathers took part at the armenian genocide in the early 20th century. With this kind of DNA in only ONE country, I am afraid the next Holocaust could already be in preparation.
Dude, we're on it, with the Euro and all. But don't worry, France is in on it, much like last time!
On November 14 2012 04:17 SilentchiLL wrote: How did the OP remain unchanged for so long when so many posts call it out for being badly written when it's about a topic like this? Kinda disappointing.
You should ask the OP that, for example by PMing him about it.
i don't think it's a mere case of parroting when kids are shown at least actual historical facts of what the nazis did. you cannot just use some 17th century prose to turn education into parroting/propaganda/partial representation etc.
whatever morality tale that this guy thinks is more important than the powerful lessons of political vigilance against nazi style ideas isn't all that important.
On November 14 2012 06:27 oneofthem wrote: okay. i'll be sure to grill some jew children to fit this moral profile.
Yeah, denial via feigned opposition is a tactic typical of soft-Nazi tactics. As NDP-leader Udo Voigt pronounced several years ago: Hitler ist tot. The NDP is not a "Führerpartei." No doubt somewhere in his platform is also a pledge not to burn Jewish children.
These are the tactics of Modern Nazis: Denying their Nazism. The only original thing here is American Nazis (see stormfront) are much more likely to employ sarcasm than their more grave German counterparts. Hand-in-glove Nazi here.
On November 14 2012 05:01 Holy_AT wrote: The german government and law is far to lenient with nazis. They are allowed to parade they even get police protection, I mean WTF ? These people should be put in jail and their leaders deserve worse. Only a dead Nazi is a good Nazi but people have learned nothing and they wont.
That's not what I heard, although I might be wrong since I'm not German. What I've heard is that there are anti-nazi laws in Germany, for instance it's a crime to publicly display the swastika symbol. Or am I wrong?
You are more or less right, although this isn't entirely correct. It is not the symbol that is outlawed. Simply put, you cannot show the swastika in a political context. It is still perfectly fine in for example educational or artistic context.
Like any society, Germany too has her limits to Freedom of Speech. They might appear more strict to outsiders, but really they are just different lines in the sand.
okay, can you tell the world what important historical realities are ignored by the education system in germany and how does inclusion change how the nazis look. being a historian you'd be pretty good at this. i know nothing about what german skools teach.
how would you improve the education on the nazi episode.
On November 14 2012 06:33 oneofthem wrote: i don't think it's a mere case of parroting when kids are shown at least actual historical facts of what the nazis did. you cannot just use some 17th century prose to turn education into parroting/propaganda/partial representation etc.
whatever morality tale that this guy thinks is more important than the powerful lessons of political vigilance against nazi style ideas isn't all that important.
Sorry, but
oneofthem wrote: still, the proposition that moral sanctions against nazis by the mere label is pretty good still stands.
is the position I am calling out here. Education teaches critical and independent thought (ideally). Attaching a label and and blanket condemnation is not eduction, it's the very definition of propaganda. Propaganga for all the right reasons maybe, but propagana nontheless.
On November 14 2012 06:33 oneofthem wrote: i don't think it's a mere case of parroting when kids are shown at least actual historical facts of what the nazis did. you cannot just use some 17th century prose to turn education into parroting/propaganda/partial representation etc.
whatever morality tale that this guy thinks is more important than the powerful lessons of political vigilance against nazi style ideas isn't all that important.
oneofthem wrote: still, the proposition that moral sanctions against nazis by the mere label is pretty good still stands.
is the position I am calling out here. Education teaches critical and independent thought (ideally). Attaching a label and and blanket condemnation is not eduction, it's the very definition of propaganda. Propaganga for all the right reasons maybe, but propagana nontheless.
there is a part of that ideal, critical exchange of ideas, but there is also value building. an exercise that is not of the same kind, does not involve the same brain parts.
when someone denies that, for example, racism against immigrants or antisemitism is bad, then you are supposed to condemn the guy. it's not so hard to figure out. the sort of limp weak relativism isn't going to stand up, especially against raw, primal hatred of the kind represented by true believers in the nazi type movements.
yes to open examination of facts, but also yes to upholding base rock moral principles. (if i call it, teaching moral values, some relativist might scream bloody murder. deal with it)
this thread has become a stockpile full of shit about DNA, holocaust, weird ideas about germany, outings of self-proclaimed nazis, nazi-hunters, and if you look in detail they are all just some kids without education and history knowledge who try to be cool (well, some some have knowledge, but their posts are hard to find in this mindless spam). the topic seems like some grudge post from a pubertal mind, even the first sentence holds words like "idiotic" and "uneducated", and the rest just follows. sry i have to be so clear, but as i see it, here's nothing to discuss. the people just state their opinions to nazis and to germany, and nothing is topic related anymore, because the topic is made up of hot air.
On November 14 2012 06:33 oneofthem wrote: i don't think it's a mere case of parroting when kids are shown at least actual historical facts of what the nazis did. you cannot just use some 17th century prose to turn education into parroting/propaganda/partial representation etc.
whatever morality tale that this guy thinks is more important than the powerful lessons of political vigilance against nazi style ideas isn't all that important.
Sorry, but
oneofthem wrote: still, the proposition that moral sanctions against nazis by the mere label is pretty good still stands.
is the position I am calling out here. Education teaches critical and independent thought (ideally). Attaching a label and and blanket condemnation is not eduction, it's the very definition of propaganda. Propaganga for all the right reasons maybe, but propagana nontheless.
there is a part of that ideal, critical exchange of ideas, but there is also value building. an exercise that is not of the same kind, does not involve the same brain parts.
when someone denies that, for example, racism against immigrants or antisemitism is bad, then you are supposed to condemn the guy. it's not so hard to figure out. the sort of limp weak relativism isn't going to stand up, especially against raw, primal hatred of the kind represented by true believers in the nazi type movements.
yes to open examination of facts, but also yes to upholding base rock moral principles. (if i call it, teaching moral values, some relativist might scream bloody murder. deal with it)
I have no problem with teaching moral values, but the only way to do that is through critical thought, not through indoctrination. That is the point. "Value-building" in the absence of critical thought is indoctrination.
Basicly what you're saying seems to be that people need to be taught morals, they are incapable of coming by them by the way of reason, so they need to be indoctrinated. Something I vehemtly disagree with.
This is not weak relativism my friend, this is believe in the ideals and ideas of humanism.
um, i've never said you don't want critical examination of the material. indoctrination is not my characterisation. the reason why i posted was to question this characterisation. on what ground are you calling the german experience an indoctrination.
what facts are left out? is it just because the narratives are a bit heavyhanded, like in a typical documentary?
yea, the preferred description of that education is critical reflection on the particular german experience and gathering lessons from history. then some kid calls it indoctrination. i said even if it's indoctrination, it is still ok. this is not to say i support indoctrination over critical reflection. i just was responding to another guy's post who characterised it as such.
On November 14 2012 07:05 AntiGrav1ty wrote: Nothing is left out. You get beat over the head with the facts in 8 different subjects throughout your whole school career.
well, for germans who don't like that consider what happened to the american south after the civil war. (not saying germans are equivalent to southern racists)
some education, even if it's overbearing, is better than reactionary hardening. it's unfortunate that maybe it's oversaturated a bit.
i think german cultural reformation is a shining achievement as well as its effort in building a united europe. this path is under threat following the fallouts of the economic crisis, and i have to react fairly strongly to thinking that wants to criticise this enlightenment achievement. it's a good thing that we are able to make progress, germany being a prime example of this progress.
On November 14 2012 07:01 oneofthem wrote: um, i've never said you don't want critical examination of the material. indoctrination is not my characterisation. the reason why i posted was to question this characterisation. on what ground are you calling the german experience an indoctrination.
what facts are left out? is it just because the narratives are a bit heavyhanded, like in a typical documentary?
yea, the preferred description of that education is critical reflection on the particular german experience and gathering lessons from history. then some kid calls it indoctrination. i said even if it's indoctrination, it is still ok. this is not to say i support indoctrination over critical reflection. i just was responding to another guy's post who characterised it as such.
Bolded part what i disagree with.. You cannot have indoctrination AND an education towards independent and critical thought. They are mutually exclusive.
I'm not complaining but I could clearly see that a lot of my classmates were getting fed up with the material and it was getting a lot more annoying and boring than morale-building for most of them (or whatever you want to call it).
On the upside pretty much everyone in Germany is aware of what happened. If people don't know what happened or glorify german history then it's because they chose to disregard the facts and not because they didn't get the education..
On November 14 2012 07:01 oneofthem wrote: um, i've never said you don't want critical examination of the material. indoctrination is not my characterisation. the reason why i posted was to question this characterisation. on what ground are you calling the german experience an indoctrination.
what facts are left out? is it just because the narratives are a bit heavyhanded, like in a typical documentary?
yea, the preferred description of that education is critical reflection on the particular german experience and gathering lessons from history. then some kid calls it indoctrination. i said even if it's indoctrination, it is still ok. this is not to say i support indoctrination over critical reflection. i just was responding to another guy's post who characterised it as such.
Bolded part what i disagree with.. You cannot have indoctrination AND an education towards independent and critical thought. They are mutually exclusive.
well, what do you think my idea indoctrination consists in? the answer is, absolutely no different from what critical education is. i am just objecting to the labeling of the education effort as indoctrination. of course, factual accuracy and fair presentation etc are important in this process. i'm not saying you should make up shit and brainwash kids. however, if someone wants to call education indoctrination, i'll just say, with pleasure.
On November 14 2012 06:33 oneofthem wrote: i don't think it's a mere case of parroting when kids are shown at least actual historical facts of what the nazis did. you cannot just use some 17th century prose to turn education into parroting/propaganda/partial representation etc.
whatever morality tale that this guy thinks is more important than the powerful lessons of political vigilance against nazi style ideas isn't all that important.
Sorry, but
oneofthem wrote: still, the proposition that moral sanctions against nazis by the mere label is pretty good still stands.
is the position I am calling out here. Education teaches critical and independent thought (ideally). Attaching a label and and blanket condemnation is not eduction, it's the very definition of propaganda. Propaganga for all the right reasons maybe, but propagana nontheless.
there is a part of that ideal, critical exchange of ideas, but there is also value building. an exercise that is not of the same kind, does not involve the same brain parts.
when someone denies that, for example, racism against immigrants or antisemitism is bad, then you are supposed to condemn the guy. it's not so hard to figure out. the sort of limp weak relativism isn't going to stand up, especially against raw, primal hatred of the kind represented by true believers in the nazi type movements.
yes to open examination of facts, but also yes to upholding base rock moral principles. (if i call it, teaching moral values, some relativist might scream bloody murder. deal with it)
I have no problem with teaching moral values, but the only way to do that is through critical thought, not through indoctrination. That is the point. "Value-building" in the absence of critical thought is indoctrination.
Basicly what you're saying seems to be that people need to be taught morals, they are incapable of coming by them by the way of reason, so they need to be indoctrinated. Something I vehemtly disagree with.
This is not weak relativism my friend, this is believe in the ideals and ideas of humanism.
Most people are incapable of such critical thought. Nothing in 10000+ years history of our species points otherwise. All of social cohesion and other necessary functions in society are built on what you call indoctrination and it won't change in the foreseeable future.
Plus it is impossible to arrive at morals by way of pure reason as morals are based in emotions (nothing wrong with that and you can still use reason to analyze them, but reason is not really unnecessary for morals to exist).
On November 14 2012 07:01 oneofthem wrote: um, i've never said you don't want critical examination of the material. indoctrination is not my characterisation. the reason why i posted was to question this characterisation. on what ground are you calling the german experience an indoctrination.
what facts are left out? is it just because the narratives are a bit heavyhanded, like in a typical documentary?
yea, the preferred description of that education is critical reflection on the particular german experience and gathering lessons from history. then some kid calls it indoctrination. i said even if it's indoctrination, it is still ok. this is not to say i support indoctrination over critical reflection. i just was responding to another guy's post who characterised it as such.
Bolded part what i disagree with.. You cannot have indoctrination AND an education towards independent and critical thought. They are mutually exclusive.
Nope they are not. They just serve different audiences. Some people will never have will or inclination to delve into critical thinking, for them you have one narrative, the others will as time goes on find out how the first narrative is skewed and form their own critical opinions. Your view of the world is too black and white (critical thinking vs "indoctrination") and completely ignores the complexity of the real world. What you call indoctrination are just normal societal mechanisms that are necessary for any society to function. Of course what I presented is also slightly too black and white (on a different level), but that was just to illustrate the point in reality people are on something like a continuum between the two extremes and it is more-dimensional.
^i'm a little more optimistic about the effects of education, but share the pessimism about both the strength of vile sentiments, as well as existing conditions of either prejudice or apathy that makes proper education difficult. a measure that bans the absolutely indefensible position is not so bad considering the risk of the alternative.
it's not even a german punishment kind of thing. i think every society should educate people on the absolute wrongness of hateful thinking and tendencies.
On November 14 2012 07:46 oneofthem wrote: ^i'm a little more optimistic about the effects of education, but share the pessimism about both the strength of vile sentiments, as well as existing conditions of either prejudice or apathy that makes proper education difficult. a measure that bans the absolutely indefensible position is not so bad considering the risk of the alternative.
it's not even a german punishment kind of thing. i think every society should educate people on the absolute wrongness of hateful thinking and tendencies.
I am more than sure that education towards critical thinking is a good thing and can accomplish a lot, but I am also sure that you cannot have society without some level of "indoctrination". And thus I do not share his general dislike for them. Societal engineering tools in general are just that, tools. And they should be used when their use is appropriate. As for the particular scenario under discussion, I do not have strong opinion one way or the other as it is really hard to tell. Lately I think that the American approach (but somewhat more reasonable) to free speech is probably a better solution. The reason for my thinking is that at a point where such limitations to free speech would have any effect would be already too late. If general population is not laughing at the extremists, it is already too late and no bans will prevent it with any reasonable certainty. On the other hand if general population dismisses the ideology, there is no reason for a ban, actually the opposite.
With the usa election thread gone and the eurocrisis thread forgotton i guess this is my new thread to go on the forum for now. Not realy my piece of cake but you have to go with the limited amount of threads offerd.
Annyway:The title is laughable and couldnt be further from the truth. Germany has the smallest amount of right extremists of every country in europe lol. This is because as a result of the war german people have a realy high awareness for what can happen. They grow up learning all the horros of the nazi regime and feel guilty about that.
It is much more interesting to discuss the uprising of extreme right in previously tollerant nations as the netherlands, or the consistantly high ratings extremist partys get in france, since they are actually reason for a concern.
well, for germans who don't like that consider what happened to the american south after the civil war. (not saying germans are equivalent to southern racists)
You mean the Scallawag-Negro coalition unleashed by radical Republicans which defeated all attempts at political moderation, and alienated relations between the races so bitterly, that when the Democrats started regaining the South, the Jim Crow laws further exacerbated racial animosity for several generations? Some achievement.
Leaving this irrelevant language of "education vs indoctrination" aside, here is my summary as to what this entire dispute is ultimately about.
There is a great empirical tradition in historiography which stems from Goethe's maxim in his introduction in the Theory of Colours:
Indeed, strictly speaking, it is useless to attempt to express the nature of a thing abstractedly. Effects we can perceive, and a complete history of those effects would, in fact, sufficiently define the nature of the thing itself. We should try in vain to describe a man's character, but let his acts be collected and an idea of the character will be presented to us.
Jakob Burckhardt even clearer in his maxim: Philosophy subordinates and is unhistorical. History coordinates and is unphilosophical.
In the tradition of history, which is intertwined with that of literature, the ultimate goal of a great historian is the same as that placed in the Greek tragedy: that of elevating the audience to Catharsis, a purification of self whereby the imbalances of emotions (or, in the modern context, ideological dogma) are brought into harmony through attained understanding.
That is the use of history to humanity. It brings use solace and peace through its ability to comfort and console the mind. Oneofthem would convert this noble vessel of peace into a vessel of war. In his perspective, things happen for the sake of illuminating moral truth. The evil of Nazism is an a priori reality in his mind far before any exposition of any worldly incarnation of it occurs. Even then, it does not matter if this world incarnation fits his descriptions in exact, so long as the interpretative force can be manipulated to serve the truth of his mind's eye. If I say to him: you probably don't want to use Hitler if you are going to vent against genetic-deterministic racism, his views aren't quite what you think they are. He will say: drag, now I'll need a new Hitler to play the role of Hitler. To him, it's absolutely irrelevant how things are actually incarnated on earth. He is off to battle for the heavens, and he is dragging truth behind his chariot.
Of course he pretends to have great respect for historical knowledge, in the same sense that Voltaire respected Shakespeare. If it's not against his dogmas, it's for him rather than against him. And since his dogmas are politely kept information-free, he pretends to play the mediator between opinion and truth.
Notice how I've been stuffing my responses with controversial matters of judgement on historical events, hoping to draw this great admirer of history out. We have a true ostrich in our midst here! Let's see if his great respect for history will prompt him to affirm, or dispute, my position when I dismiss the following historical interpretations as popular legend, speculative, apocryphal or misleading information:
“The World Jewish Congress declared war on Germany on September 3 1939.” “Fascist philosophy is anti-semitic or racist to the core.” “Salazar was a fascist dictator who provided Germany with valuable shipments of Tungsten during the war.” “The Nazis infamously framed the KPD by setting fire to the Reichstag, by which leverage they passed the enabling act.” “Kristallnacht symbolised a milestone whereby Hitler had decided to take harsher measures against German Jews.”
Not being a historian, he has rather naive views on how easily facts are accepted as indisputable historical truth, but we will forgive him and credit him with Rankean illusions on how historical research could be perfected. After all, the most important part of historianship is building values, and in this sense, he, with the might of his keyboard and the sharpness of his intuition alone is better qualified to see the moral essence of Nazism, and relate them in the field of education to historians such as Rainer Zitelmann, Eberhard Jäckel, or Werner Maser, who unnecessarily complicate the matter by confusing people with superfluous information and ambiguous analysis. (Obviously, the Historikerstreit in the 80s did eventually drag the level of debate on Nazi history nearly down to his level. If only he could have been born early enough to participate in it, I'm sure oneofthem would have found it the most scintillating use of his formidable wits.) Children need to be trained like Gorillas in those linguistic aptitude tests, linking automated moral precepts to historical events.
Here is my approximation of oneofthem's grade 6 World History curriculum:
Second World War: Shows racism, anti-semitism is bad. Antebellum South: Exposes the evils of slavery. Ides of March: Inspires us to overthrow dictatorships Mary Tudor: Exposes the horrors of Catholic fanaticism Revocation of Edict of Nantes: Evils of intolerant theological monarchies Virginio's stabbing of his daughter: err... Cideville's Infatuation with Mme. Chatelet: well... Duke of Wellington's Speech Supporting the Corn Laws: I guess...he's some sort of reactionary. Affair of the Poisons in 1677: Wait...which socio-economical group were poisoning whom? I need ideological clarification or else why is this on the curriculum at all?
That's a curt summary of the consequences if we let this dangerous fellow expand his influence beyond the walls of this vaunted website. So before you endorse this guy, ask yourself this question: Do I want my children to be reading LaFontaine by the time they're six, or this guy for moral clarity?
On November 14 2012 09:25 oneofthem wrote: i had thought you were some kind of harmless oddity before, but when you blame freed black slaves for the racial tensions of the south. seriously?
not reading the rest of that because you have no idea who i am or what i do. sorry.
Yeah, I'd at least read the wikipedia article on post-war history before I come back to challenge the contention, but what I wrote was a red herring. The significant issue here is that you seem to think I agree with you that the most important question here is which "group" deserves the blame, only that I'm taking the other side.
As for my misunderstanding of your subtle virtues, I apologise for making your articulation the equivalent of your person. Easy targets, and all. No doubt you are a good samaritan at home, a credit to your neighbourhood, and you eat meat the proper English way with your fork pointing down. I think a few Nazis may have fit this description as well, but I'll finally relent and admit the painful truth: I don't think you're a Nazi. I don't think you're a good guy or a bad guy. I don't know you, as you said, just as you don't know me, Nazis, Germans, or the mind of God.
On November 13 2012 00:36 BluePanther wrote: For all the comments about how America is too far right politically, Europe always has this problem and we never really do.
Most of which stems from the fact that having a line allighment for political parties is extreemly inacurate, and produces funny results.
On November 14 2012 09:25 oneofthem wrote: i had thought you were some kind of harmless oddity before, but when you blame freed black slaves for the racial tensions of the south. seriously?
It is perfectly possible that they do have significant responsibility, granted in no way entire.
Black slaves were poorly if at all educated and probably many of them remembered the tribal life in Africa, so it is not hard to imagine that some of those people would do things that were not well recived by the white people, and by us today as well.
mmkay. tell us more about noble southern efforts for racial harmony being sabotaged by the north. actually, don't.
i don't really want to start a pissing contest with you. most of the stuff i read are in other fields. you can be a historian about nazis. we need more of that.
As for people disliking anti-imigration position and living in countries with strong labour unions, those people are funny hypocrites.
The anti-imigration and labour unions are based on the same principle of limiting supply of labour, and have similar intent, to either drive the labour price up, or getting people that currently have no job a job, due to employer having to work with limited supply of candidates for employment.
i admit i've never heard the southern revisionist story about reconstruction. mostly it's about how the federal government abandoned blacks for a hundred years after trying but failing to let blacks vote and have some political power in the south
thanks for balancing out the history though because we really need to have an understanding of the southern soul.
On November 14 2012 08:55 Rassy wrote: With the usa election thread gone and the eurocrisis thread forgotton i guess this is my new thread to go on the forum for now. Not realy my piece of cake but you have to go with the limited amount of threads offerd.
Annyway:The title is laughable and couldnt be further from the truth. Germany has the smallest amount of right extremists of every country in europe lol. This is because as a result of the war german people have a realy high awareness for what can happen. They grow up learning all the horros of the nazi regime and feel guilty about that.
It is much more interesting to discuss the uprising of extreme right in previously tollerant nations as the netherlands, or the consistantly high ratings extremist partys get in france, since they are actually reason for a concern.
Generally these parties are right wing populism (tax funded candy every saturday!) and tend to be a way to show dissatisfaction of the current parties. In times of economic crisis, the extreme right always gets a boost at the same rate as the uneducated get laid off.
It is indeed alarming though in many countries, and especially in the traditionally liberal ones.
On November 14 2012 09:57 naastyOne wrote: As for people disliking anti-imigration position and living in countries with strong labour unions, those people are funny hypocrites.
The anti-imigration and labour unions are based on the same principle of limiting supply of labour, and have similar intent, to either drive the labour price up, or getting people that currently have no job a job, due to employer having to work with limited supply of candidates for employment.
On November 14 2012 10:00 oneofthem wrote: i admit i've never heard the southern revisionist story about reconstruction. mostly it's about how the federal government abandoned blacks for a hundred years after trying but failing to let blacks vote and have some political power in the south
thanks for balancing out the history though because we really need to have an understanding of the southern soul.
As someone who always advocates moderation, I wouldn't encourage you to take in that southern soul too rapidly. A large feast is unhealthy to the undernourished body, and you might choke on the morsels of learning which may be difficult to disgorge, and abandon you to moral ambiguity, relativism, or even nihilism.
When we were children we were happy to know a little of something. When we turn teens some disease strikes us and we begin to know everything about everything. Somehow most of us go on from there and reconnect to a sane view of himself in the world, so don't fret under your malaise. It happens to everyone nowadays.
This is the era of information even if worse came to worst, some jew would tweet and ask for help before a genocide ... I wouldn't call today's politics as nazi but as xenophobe. Not wanting to kill, but perhaps deport ....
On November 14 2012 10:00 oneofthem wrote: i admit i've never heard the southern revisionist story about reconstruction. mostly it's about how the federal government abandoned blacks for a hundred years after trying but failing to let blacks vote and have some political power in the south
thanks for balancing out the history though because we really need to have an understanding of the southern soul.
As someone who always advocates moderation, I wouldn't encourage you to take in that southern soul too rapidly. A large feast is unhealthy to the undernourished body, and you might choke on the morsels of learning which may be difficult to disgorge, and give abandon you to moral ambiguity, relativism, or even nihilism.
When we were children we were happy to know a little of something. When we turn teens some disease strikes us and we begin to know everything about everything. Somehow most of us go on from there and reconnect to a sane view of himself in the world, so don't fret under your malaise. It happens to everyone nowadays.
To-morrow, and to-morrow and to-morrow Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury Signifying nothing.
On November 13 2012 15:24 Mallard86 wrote: Europe has been leaning to the left heavily for quite some time. Its only natural that there be some backlash especially when things arent going well. Of course, its hardly neo-nazism just like "far" left ideologies are hardly communism. Its just a branding by the left influenced moderates and leftists to demonize any sort of right movements.
Europe is pretty much in the center, not to the left. Current economic troubles cause rise to both right and left wing extremist movements.
Tax rates, social policies, entitlement and nationalization would disagree.
On November 13 2012 15:24 Mallard86 wrote: Europe has been leaning to the left heavily for quite some time. Its only natural that there be some backlash especially when things arent going well. Of course, its hardly neo-nazism just like "far" left ideologies are hardly communism. Its just a branding by the left influenced moderates and leftists to demonize any sort of right movements.
Europe is pretty much in the center, not to the left. Current economic troubles cause rise to both right and left wing extremist movements.
Tax rates, social policies, entitlement and nationalization would disagree.
Many a right wing European government is working hard to sell out whatever national treasure and safety there's left. Europe's moving quickly from the tax funded left to the bankrupt right.
Edit. Example: Our own Swedish right wing government proposing to raise national debt in order to lower taxes. Sounds like a plan for the future.
On November 13 2012 15:24 Mallard86 wrote: Europe has been leaning to the left heavily for quite some time. Its only natural that there be some backlash especially when things arent going well. Of course, its hardly neo-nazism just like "far" left ideologies are hardly communism. Its just a branding by the left influenced moderates and leftists to demonize any sort of right movements.
Europe is pretty much in the center, not to the left. Current economic troubles cause rise to both right and left wing extremist movements.
Tax rates, social policies, entitlement and nationalization would disagree.
Many a right wing European government is working hard to sell out whatever national treasure and safety there's left. Europe's moving quickly from the tax funded left to the bankrupt right.
Edit. Example: Our own Swedish right wing government proposing to raise national debt in order to lower taxes. Sounds like a plan for the future.
This is a perfect example of a left entrenched population. You have lived so long in such a left position that you view your position as moderate. The reality is that both left and right positions are not particularly effective and a moderate position is best but in most of Europe, and increasingly the US, a moderate position is seen as right wing.
On November 13 2012 15:24 Mallard86 wrote: Europe has been leaning to the left heavily for quite some time. Its only natural that there be some backlash especially when things arent going well. Of course, its hardly neo-nazism just like "far" left ideologies are hardly communism. Its just a branding by the left influenced moderates and leftists to demonize any sort of right movements.
Europe is pretty much in the center, not to the left. Current economic troubles cause rise to both right and left wing extremist movements.
Tax rates, social policies, entitlement and nationalization would disagree.
Many a right wing European government is working hard to sell out whatever national treasure and safety there's left. Europe's moving quickly from the tax funded left to the bankrupt right.
Edit. Example: Our own Swedish right wing government proposing to raise national debt in order to lower taxes. Sounds like a plan for the future.
This is a perfect example of a left entrenched population. You have lived so long in such a left position that you view your position as moderate. The reality is that both left and right positions are not particularly effective and a moderate position is best but in most of Europe, and increasingly the US, a moderate position is seen as right wing.
Oh I won't pretend to be a moderate. I'm totally left.
What I'm saying is that Europe is going more and more towards the right wing with no tendency to stop. We've seen several catastrophies in its wake. For instance borrowing to lower taxes, public hospitals being sold to private investors where patients are simply left to die and where there are tournaments being held on who can feed the patients the least, and spend the least amount of time on each elderly patient waiting to die. We see public institutions sold cheaply and then being dismantled for a net gain to the investor. We see tax money intended for health care and education going to the stock markets.
What we see is a degenerate version of the society we grew up in, where the interest in maximum gain has far surpassed the care for our fellow man. The rise of nationalism and intolerance is in my opinion a natural follow up to this development.
For referrence, if you didn't know, Germany's military budget is EQUAL to Austria, Switzerland, Czech, Belguin, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands military budgets COMBINED. Take a look at that list of countries and their proximity to Germany. Scary isn't it?
If you didn´t know, combine the population or area of these countries and Germany is bigger.
For obvious reasons you forgot poland (larger per capita), sweden((larger per capita) Poland (larger per capita) and France (larger per capita). Compared to the position of influence Germany commands in the world the military is Laughable.
That is, and never was the power of Germany it was industry and education.
How can anyone with even the most basic education believe Germany is larger than all these countries?
On November 14 2012 11:10 Euronyme wrote: Many a right wing European government is working hard to sell out whatever national treasure and safety there's left. Europe's moving quickly from the tax funded left to the bankrupt right.
Edit. Example: Our own Swedish right wing government proposing to raise national debt in order to lower taxes. Sounds like a plan for the future.
the irony of this thread is that the political landscape in Germany is actually moving to the left.
The social democratic party has had huge losses to the radical left, which is represented in national parliament with 10% actually voting for them (numbers that arent imaginary because of some weird interpretation in an insignificant, defective, populistic study). Its a mix of communists, ex-GDR politicians and people who are disappointed in the traditional parties.
Even the conservative party (christian-democratic union) of Angela Merkel moved so far left that its almost not distinguishable from the social democratic party. The only difference is that they can win votes because they dont back down in the crisis to "Euro Bonds" which would basically mean that we (Germany) finance the debt for countries that have so much debt and such a bad economic situation because of misgovernment that the market doesnt trust them anymore. They basically reached the end of the spiral of making more and more debt so it doesnt work anymore and they are basically bancrupt. And Germany wont step in to finance that vicious circle. Well as long as Merkel gets re-elected next year, but i dont think we're able to finance all the debt because we have a lot of debt too. At least the markets have faith in our economy so we dont drown in interest like the rest of Europe. Eurobonds would turn that upside down and Germany gets punished for actually having a competitive economy.
I know its against the law of good governance that you should cut budgets in the crisis because you are meant to act counter-cyclical: Save money when the economy is good and spend money when the economy is bad so you have less extremes. But when your social state is so blown up that you even make debt when the economy is good you cant save up money and now you have a huge problem. No economy and no money. They need radical reforms and Germany doesnt have the democratical legitimation to enforce them. We want to help but we arent allowed to and financing noncompetitive economies is simply wasting money and no solution. It doesnt help anybody if we all go bancrupt.
Basically we need the United States of Europe to solve this kind of problems. Because the European Union isnt fit for those kind of problems. The discussion in Germany is more to move national responsibilities to european institutions. Since the EU is a giant mess, its not that easy. Note how this trend is anti-nationalistic.
So you might think this is totally off topic? I just want to show you what the real issues are in Germany. We dont even have a right wing populist party represented in parliament like in Netherlands (Geert Wilders) or in France (Le Pen). The right political spectrum in Germany is basically a giant void. There are discussions if this might be a problem because a radical party could step in and fill this void, but there is no sign for it. No nationalist, no nazis, not even patriots are represented in german parliament. Because there is no such thing as a german patriot nowadays. If you're proud of your country you are a nazi so nobody dares to say they are proud of their country. Thats the truth and its really sad and it sickens me when people still blame our generation for stuff that happened over 60 years ago. We're the least patriotic country in the world. And it still hurts me everytime people call germans nazis and are suspicious that we might strive for world domination. Some people are still so scared. Maybe its because people tried to make us an agragrian state with the treaty of Versailles (which actually backfired by helping Hitlers strive for power), they tried to split us up and still we are the strongest economy in Europe. That might be scary. Because no matter what you do to Germany it comes back. The world is rather demanding Germany to help (financially and militarywise) than being scared. But we dont follow blindly anymore to anyone. Even if we get a lot of hate for it and get accused as nazis for not following blindly. We dont go to Iraq. We dont go to Lybia. We neither support Israel's settlement policy nor a preemptive first strike. We are critically thinking. Some people get butthurt over that, because they assume we arent allowed to voice an opinion... since you know.. we are all nazis.
I've been observing this thread for a while now and im quite suprised that it survived for so long because it has no basis for discussion and misses totally the problems of our time. You could say its plain ridiculous. But its always fun not to discuss the real problems and talk about some bullshit instead.
This is probably one of the most poorly worded titles in TL history. Honestly these elements exist in every society and are pretty much impossible to purge. I don't think that Germany is in danger of being taken over you just have to be on guard against the people.
I dunno if anyone has brought this up but saying nazis were "far right" is anything but true. please do some reading... If i had to guess why everyone labels them right winged is because everything that`s "right" is bad nowadays... Also please read about their actual policies (nazis) and see if they are not implemented in milder forms almost everywhere in "civilised" world.
nazis weren`t all about killing jews and setting up camps...
Well, I can't speak for everyone, but. All I ever hear about with nazis is how terrible this and that are, I feel like I've only ever heard one side of the argument. It's not too dissimilar with things like the twin towers and the Iraq war. I really want to hear the perspective of the people being ostracised sometimes, especially with nazi's. -Out of the loop-
On November 14 2012 13:23 zebaty wrote: I dunno if anyone has brought this up but saying nazis were "far right" is anything but true. please do some reading... If i had to guess why everyone labels them right winged is because everything that`s "right" is bad nowadays... Also please read about their actual policies (nazis) and see if they are not implemented in milder forms almost everywhere in "civilised" world.
nazis weren`t all about killing jews and setting up camps...
Signed,
Extreme right anti nazi
didnt you know? everybody who is right or far right is a conservative racist, that probably has relatives with nazis, is poor and uneducted.
On November 14 2012 13:26 Cyber_Cheese wrote: Well, I can't speak for everyone, but. All I ever hear about with nazis is how terrible this and that are, I feel like I've only ever heard one side of the argument. It's not too dissimilar with things like the twin towers and the Iraq war. I really want to hear the perspective of the people being ostracised sometimes, especially with nazi's. -Out of the loop-
Unless you believe someone can actually justify genocide I'm not sure you're going to hear a meaningful other side. It's not just a matter of perspective (or perhaps it is, but the perspective is the one that most of us have now adopted for good reason)... they committed some of the most terrible crimes conceivable in the eyes of a mostly liberal population with a belief in equal rights and anti-discrimination.
The perspective of the Nazi's is I guess that they were trying to further human evolution by breeding a superior race. They were doing humanity a "good" but this isn't supported by science. There's nothing genetically superior about Aryans.
On November 14 2012 09:25 oneofthem wrote: i had thought you were some kind of harmless oddity before, but when you blame freed black slaves for the racial tensions of the south. seriously?
damn those northerners for allowing niggers to vote. gotta take righteous vengeance!
not reading the rest of that because you have no idea who i am or what i do. sorry.
You have no idea about history, especially not Reconstruction. MotlKe is pretty on point, though a bit off still. Here is what Lee had to say on the matter:
Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand.
While there is speculation on the matter, the point of contention was not necessarily with blacks (as there were more abolitionist groups in the South than the North prior to the War), but with the subjugation of Reconstruction which was Northern Occupation - literally. Many, unfortunately scapegoated blacks and turned bitter. Sad bit of history, unfortunately. Without reconstruction racial tensions would have been dramatically reduced.
compared with rest of world germany has nearly NO nazi no extremists ... so i still dont get the sense of this post ... only country in europe with below 5% right parties and still all this posts
On November 14 2012 17:21 CoR wrote: compared with rest of world germany has nearly NO nazi no extremists ... so i still dont get the sense of this post ... only country in europe with below 5% right parties and still all this posts
Germany has always had a minimal liberal segment. Oswald Spengler spoke for the nationalistic-authoritarian school of his time when he wrote:
"There are principles in Germany that are detested and disreputable; but on German soil it is only liberalism that is contemptible."
Paul Kennedy, of Yale University, writes of "the sheer venom and blind hatred behind so many of the assaults in Germany on Manchesterism." This term, "Manchesterism," was an abusive label — a Schmähwort. As Julius Faucher, a leader of the free trade party, noted in 1870, it was invented by Ferdinand Lassalle, the founder of German socialism. It then went the rounds of the conservative press, finally, as Faucher wrote, coming to "form the alpha and the omega of political wisdom," even for the Prussian government. For decades it was standard even in the supposedly value-neutral scholarly literature.
Jakob Mauvillon is perhaps the most studious and influential of German liberalism (though to be fair Wilhelm von Humboldt is not far behind), and we have to go back to the late 18th Century.
Honestly though, the term right and left is meaningless, especially when it is never defined and each individual has their own particular thought on the subject. It's better to speak in terms of ideology, policy, etc.
At least Europeans still use liberal correctly (e.g. libertarianism).
Wow this again? I never understood why people always love left wing extremists with all their violence and destruction while hating on right wing extremists who pretty much never case any problem.
TBH OP I don't give a shit about these neo naziz, I bet they are completely harmless however I do am afraid of all the love for left wing extremist group who take it on themselves to hurt everyone that is to the right side
On November 14 2012 21:30 pellejohnson wrote: Wow this again? I never understood why people always love left wing extremists with all their violence and destruction while hating on right wing extremists who pretty much never case any problem.
TBH OP I don't give a shit about these neo naziz, I bet they are completely harmless however I do am afraid of all the love for left wing extremist group who take it on themselves to hurt everyone that is to the right side
i dont see a problem at all. Personally i am neither right nor left sided.
Germany is democratic, why not let people believe in what they want to believe. Why is it a problem to be right sided? Because of the past? Dont be ridicilous; this is more than two generations ago. You can be right sided and dont kill millions of innocent people. You can be left sided and kill millions. Whats bad is killing and nobody wants that, so doesnt the NPD.
I personally believe people like u just want to act up themselves. Also the newspapers do this... Critising China for communism, critisting right-sided thinking people, criticising Iran: "oh thats so bad, but we are better people". Pretending consternation is selfish and disgusting!
On November 14 2012 21:45 HadeCiao wrote: i dont see a problem at all. Personally i am neither right nor left sided.
Germany is democratic, why not let people believe in what they want to believe. Why is it a problem to be right sided? Because of the past? Dont be ridicilous; this is more than two generations ago. You can be right sided and dont kill millions of innocent people. You can be left sided and kill millions. Whats bad is killing and nobody wants that, so doesnt the NPD.
I personally believe people like u just want to act up themselves. Also the newspapers do this... Critising China for communism, critisting right-sided thinking people, criticising Iran: "oh thats so bad, but we are better people". Pretending consternation is selfish and disgusting!
Nothing wrong with bashing totalitarian regimes, be they fake-communists or real-theocracies.
On November 13 2012 01:29 freewareplayer wrote: OP is making me semi angry and to post the topic like he did, is nothing short than a sensationilistic (?) exagerration which everyone who was your mentioned "abitur" should be able to see.
A recent study by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, a foundation to promote democracy, has shown that an alarming number of Germans, to be precise: 9%, embrace far right political views an sympathize with the Nazi-Party or its (rather pathetic and ineffectual) reincarnation: NPD.
"9% embrace far right political views or with the NPD"
If you read statistics like this, you need to ask yourself HOW this was determined. I can pick one or 2 random points of the NPD that arent completly outragous, and surely i will find 9 % who agree.
Without seeing the actual set of questions which determined this statistics, it isnt worth jackshit ( in case they are somewhere here but i overlooked them i severly apologise ).
I am not in any case doubting the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, in fact i know they do good stuff, as i have been there myself, and even volunteered being a "coach" at school informing people about new right movements and parties, so i even worked in a project by them.
However saying 9 % sympathise with the NPD is downright bullshit, seriously, how are you making us look here with your topic man?
I dare you to go to the streets in west germany and show me that roughly every 10th person sympathises with the NPD, i dare you, how can you live in germany and believe that, i dont know, or im massively naive, but i dont think its the latter. As a german who despises NPD etc, cause its nothing less than braindeads, it offends me that other people might think 10 % of us thing this way, which we do not.
Dont believe Statistics unless you know exactly how they were constructed, its one of the first things you learn at uni for examply in Psychology. I dont mean to offend the op, im sorry, just a bit mad at the title which suggests more than 10 % in germany vote npd, i lold at that.
On November 13 2012 01:23 zatic wrote: I think you are misrepresenting today's Germany. Germany today probably has less backing for Nazi ideology than ever before. Just look at how successful the NPD and the DVU (does anyone even still remember them?) were not even 10 years ago. Now they nothing but are a sorry shadow of their former prowess. Where did their voters go to? Certainly not to another extremist party, because there isn't one. Most of them have returned to either conservatives, local far right parties or Die Linke.
You will always have a very low number of people who will still continue to support Nazi ideas. But if anything that number goes continually down in Germany. The reason this is - once again - prominently featured in the media is of course the murders of the "Nazi terrorists" that surfaced last year. It's a sad effect, but essentially we are talking about a "Nazi uprising" because 3 people committed 10 murders over a period of 10 years.
good post
I never really thought about that (i mean, yea, most statistics are crap), but I think some of those statistics are somewhat truthful.
Don't really remember what the DVU was, but I'll get some informations later about them...
Just the fact that the media in Germany is not precise in what they do, makes me feel really worried.
On November 14 2012 17:21 CoR wrote: compared with rest of world germany has nearly NO nazi no extremists ... so i still dont get the sense of this post ... only country in europe with below 5% right parties and still all this posts
Germany has always had a minimal liberal segment. Oswald Spengler spoke for the nationalistic-authoritarian school of his time when he wrote:
"There are principles in Germany that are detested and disreputable; but on German soil it is only liberalism that is contemptible."
Paul Kennedy, of Yale University, writes of "the sheer venom and blind hatred behind so many of the assaults in Germany on Manchesterism." This term, "Manchesterism," was an abusive label — a Schmähwort. As Julius Faucher, a leader of the free trade party, noted in 1870, it was invented by Ferdinand Lassalle, the founder of German socialism. It then went the rounds of the conservative press, finally, as Faucher wrote, coming to "form the alpha and the omega of political wisdom," even for the Prussian government. For decades it was standard even in the supposedly value-neutral scholarly literature.
Jakob Mauvillon is perhaps the most studious and influential of German liberalism (though to be fair Wilhelm von Humboldt is not far behind), and we have to go back to the late 18th Century.
Honestly though, the term right and left is meaningless, especially when it is never defined and each individual has their own particular thought on the subject. It's better to speak in terms of ideology, policy, etc.
At least Europeans still use liberal correctly (e.g. libertarianism).
The terms left and right emerged after the French revolution, when the Ultras who favoured restoration of pre-1789 privileges were on the right, and a confused and disparate group of Bonapartists, Liberals and Jacobin Republicans held the left, while the moderate administration under Louis XVIII and Decazes had to hold the middle-ground, sometimes through the militant suppression of both sides.
In the first National Assembly during the Revolution, the factions were seated vertically rather than horizontally, such that by the time of the Terror, the Jacobins were known as the Montagnards, due to their propensity to hold the highest seats in the Assembly.
The question of German liberalism brings me back to my original point: that the moderate (or rather, the middle-ground) Revolutionaries of 1848 are still colloquially called liberals in historiography. The Liberals also for the first two decades of the German Empire held a co-dominant position within the Reichstag. Today when the Platz des 18. März celebrates that liberal-constitutionalist legacy, they are merely celebrating the shadows, rather than the character of what German liberalism traditionally was. Among other things, it was considerably more Volkish and anti-cosmopolitan than the aristocratic order with which it was engaged in constant political cleavage.
By the time of the economic downturn in the Bismarck-era, protection had become a hot issue, and both the battle lines and the battle might have followed the historical precedent in England in 1830-31, when the agrarians lost their influence in the Tory party under Peel, but for one major disqualification. Apart from the left-liberal splinter group, the Liberals largely came around to making common cause with both the Prussian conservatives, and the Southern Catholics on free trade. On one level they wanted to protect the industries, but on a more fundamental level it was the overwhelming intellectual consensus in Bismarck's Germany against individualism and pluralism, in favour of the Volksgemeinschaft.
In some ways, the Liberals whom the Germans celebrate as the proto-democrats of their national history held political values closer to the NPD than the mainstream parties.
On November 13 2012 15:24 Mallard86 wrote: Europe has been leaning to the left heavily for quite some time. Its only natural that there be some backlash especially when things arent going well. Of course, its hardly neo-nazism just like "far" left ideologies are hardly communism. Its just a branding by the left influenced moderates and leftists to demonize any sort of right movements.
Europe is pretty much in the center, not to the left. Current economic troubles cause rise to both right and left wing extremist movements.
Tax rates, social policies, entitlement and nationalization would disagree.
Tax rates in Europe are all over the place, some have flat tax that US right wingers sometime dream about. But tax rates are in itself not really a good indicators of how far left or right the country is.
There are very few nationalized industries in Europe, so I have no idea what you are talking about. And left would be (near) complete nationalization not the few we have. So in that Europe is pretty much in the center with balanced proportion.
Social policies. What do you mean by that ? As in social security, healthcare, or do you mean as in gay rights, abortion, religion ? If you mean the latter, yes most of Europe is pretty much left, but that is of course awesome. If the former, universal healthcare is not a sign of left wing policies, as doctors and hospitals can still be private, only insurance is public and even there are exceptions. Pretty much center. The same goes for unemployment benefits, pensions.
Problem is that your viewpoint is so far to the right, but you think you are actually close to the center. You are not. Center is where there is balance between the left and right, Europe is pretty much in center as you can get. Some countries are more to the left, some more to the right of course.
On November 14 2012 21:30 pellejohnson wrote: Wow this again? I never understood why people always love left wing extremists with all their violence and destruction while hating on right wing extremists who pretty much never case any problem.
TBH OP I don't give a shit about these neo naziz, I bet they are completely harmless however I do am afraid of all the love for left wing extremist group who take it on themselves to hurt everyone that is to the right side
There are in fact violent left-wing extremists but the point is, their violence (at least thats the case in germany) is pointed against materialistic goods (luxury cars...) or the government (attacks on policemen during riots). Not a single person died because of this in the last 20 years in germany. (Not that I want to defend this, just to put it in perspective)
On the other hand we have 149 cases of racist motivated murder in germany since 1990. 10 of wich were carefully planed and executed by a terrorist group who calls themselves NSU and even made a video about it.
On November 14 2012 21:30 pellejohnson wrote: Wow this again? I never understood why people always love left wing extremists with all their violence and destruction while hating on right wing extremists who pretty much never case any problem.
TBH OP I don't give a shit about these neo naziz, I bet they are completely harmless however I do am afraid of all the love for left wing extremist group who take it on themselves to hurt everyone that is to the right side
There are in fact violent left-wing extremists but the point is, their violence (at least thats the case in germany) is pointed against materialistic goods (luxury cars...) or the government (attacks on policemen during riots). Not a single person died because of this in the last 20 years in germany. (Not that I want to defend this, just to put it in perspective)
On the other hand we have 149 cases of racist motivated murder in germany since 1990. 10 of wich were carefully planed and executed by a terrorist group who calls themselves NSU and even made a video about it.
Are you sure this is true and not a single person died from left wing extremist violence? I do vaguely remember the bader meinhoff gruppe and the Raf (rotte armee fraction, the succesor of the Bader meinhoff gruppe) and i also vaguely remember that they killed at least one industrial leader in germany.
On November 14 2012 21:30 pellejohnson wrote: Wow this again? I never understood why people always love left wing extremists with all their violence and destruction while hating on right wing extremists who pretty much never case any problem.
TBH OP I don't give a shit about these neo naziz, I bet they are completely harmless however I do am afraid of all the love for left wing extremist group who take it on themselves to hurt everyone that is to the right side
There are in fact violent left-wing extremists but the point is, their violence (at least thats the case in germany) is pointed against materialistic goods (luxury cars...) or the government (attacks on policemen during riots). Not a single person died because of this in the last 20 years in germany. (Not that I want to defend this, just to put it in perspective)
On the other hand we have 149 cases of racist motivated murder in germany since 1990. 10 of wich were carefully planed and executed by a terrorist group who calls themselves NSU and even made a video about it.
Are you sure this is true and not a single person died from left wing extremist violence? I do vaguely remember the bader meinhoff gruppe and the Raf (rotte armee fraction, the succesor of the Bader meinhoff gruppe) and i also vaguely remember that they killed at least one industrial leader in germany.
They did yes, not in the past 20 years though. Which is in stark contrast to the ~ 150 deaths attributed to extreme right ideology over the same time. Which is what esperanto was saying.
Even before the body count for the entire RAF is 34, many of which were RAF themselves. The now infamous NSU killed 10 people just over the past 10 years.
On November 14 2012 21:30 pellejohnson wrote: Wow this again? I never understood why people always love left wing extremists with all their violence and destruction while hating on right wing extremists who pretty much never case any problem.
TBH OP I don't give a shit about these neo naziz, I bet they are completely harmless however I do am afraid of all the love for left wing extremist group who take it on themselves to hurt everyone that is to the right side
There are in fact violent left-wing extremists but the point is, their violence (at least thats the case in germany) is pointed against materialistic goods (luxury cars...) or the government (attacks on policemen during riots). Not a single person died because of this in the last 20 years in germany. (Not that I want to defend this, just to put it in perspective)
On the other hand we have 149 cases of racist motivated murder in germany since 1990. 10 of wich were carefully planed and executed by a terrorist group who calls themselves NSU and even made a video about it.
Are you sure this is true and not a single person died from left wing extremist violence? I do vaguely remember the bader meinhoff gruppe and the Raf (rotte armee fraction, the succesor of the Bader meinhoff gruppe) and i also vaguely remember that they killed at least one industrial leader in germany.
They did yes, not in the past 20 years though. Which is in stark contrast to the ~ 150 deaths attributed to extreme right ideology over the same time. Which is what esperanto was saying.
Even before the body count for the entire RAF is 34, many of which were RAF themselves. The now infamous NSU killed 10 people just over the past 10 years.
I am sorry, I actually have to correct myself, there have been 2 cases of murder from the RAF since 1990, one in 1991 and one in 1993.
On November 14 2012 21:30 pellejohnson wrote: Wow this again? I never understood why people always love left wing extremists with all their violence and destruction while hating on right wing extremists who pretty much never case any problem.
TBH OP I don't give a shit about these neo naziz, I bet they are completely harmless however I do am afraid of all the love for left wing extremist group who take it on themselves to hurt everyone that is to the right side
There are in fact violent left-wing extremists but the point is, their violence (at least thats the case in germany) is pointed against materialistic goods (luxury cars...) or the government (attacks on policemen during riots). Not a single person died because of this in the last 20 years in germany. (Not that I want to defend this, just to put it in perspective)
On the other hand we have 149 cases of racist motivated murder in germany since 1990. 10 of wich were carefully planed and executed by a terrorist group who calls themselves NSU and even made a video about it.
Are you sure this is true and not a single person died from left wing extremist violence? I do vaguely remember the bader meinhoff gruppe and the Raf (rotte armee fraction, the succesor of the Bader meinhoff gruppe) and i also vaguely remember that they killed at least one industrial leader in germany.
They did yes, not in the past 20 years though. Which is in stark contrast to the ~ 150 deaths attributed to extreme right ideology over the same time. Which is what esperanto was saying.
Even before the body count for the entire RAF is 34, many of which were RAF themselves. The now infamous NSU killed 10 people just over the past 10 years.
Well the Federal Ministry of the Interior speaks of 58 since the reunion. That means according to said Federal Ministry around ~2.5 people get murdered by rightwing extremists in reunited Germany each year. Germany has 80 million inhabitants and 2.5 rightwing murders every year and yet you speak of rightwing extremism like it would be everywhere and omnipresent. Your argumentation is totally onesided, misinforming and build up on fearmongering on fox news level.
EDIT: You (Zatic) is the wrong word. More like the people in this thread who speak of a fast rising rightwing extremist movement in Germany, while using onesided (or just flat out wrong) lines of argumentation.
On November 13 2012 00:20 Rannasha wrote: Far-right xenophobic populism has been on the rise this past decade all across Europe. Germany is no exception in the matter, though they may have a different view on things due to their history.
I do feel that in the current day and age, with global communication accessible to anyone in developed countries, it would be very hard for a Nazi-like party to gain total control over a country like they did in Germany in the 1930's. Nevertheless, it's something to be wary about.
What I find funny is when someone points out the downright failed state of the multicultural society of European nations you are suddenly a xenophobe populist and a nazi.
Is it wrong to point out that 3rd world immigrants out of africa and the Middle East / North Africa have failed to bring any contribution to Europe?
High wellfare abuse, high crime, low employment, no integration yet when a sane person points this out he is a bigot / racist / nazi. Immigrants have brought the wellfare state of the 70's to the brink of collapse but better not point this out.
Amount of nazi's in europe? Near zero I can imagine, amount of people sick of a failed multicultural state ? a lot.
On November 14 2012 21:30 pellejohnson wrote: Wow this again? I never understood why people always love left wing extremists with all their violence and destruction while hating on right wing extremists who pretty much never case any problem.
TBH OP I don't give a shit about these neo naziz, I bet they are completely harmless however I do am afraid of all the love for left wing extremist group who take it on themselves to hurt everyone that is to the right side
There are in fact violent left-wing extremists but the point is, their violence (at least thats the case in germany) is pointed against materialistic goods (luxury cars...) or the government (attacks on policemen during riots). Not a single person died because of this in the last 20 years in germany. (Not that I want to defend this, just to put it in perspective)
On the other hand we have 149 cases of racist motivated murder in germany since 1990. 10 of wich were carefully planed and executed by a terrorist group who calls themselves NSU and even made a video about it.
Are you sure this is true and not a single person died from left wing extremist violence? I do vaguely remember the bader meinhoff gruppe and the Raf (rotte armee fraction, the succesor of the Bader meinhoff gruppe) and i also vaguely remember that they killed at least one industrial leader in germany.
They did yes, not in the past 20 years though. Which is in stark contrast to the ~ 150 deaths attributed to extreme right ideology over the same time. Which is what esperanto was saying.
Even before the body count for the entire RAF is 34, many of which were RAF themselves. The now infamous NSU killed 10 people just over the past 10 years.
Germany has 80 million inhabitants and 2.5 rightwing murders every year and yet you speak of rightwing extremism like it would be everywhere and omnipresent. Your argumentation is totally onesided, misinforming and build up on fearmongering on fox news level.
On November 14 2012 21:30 pellejohnson wrote: Wow this again? I never understood why people always love left wing extremists with all their violence and destruction while hating on right wing extremists who pretty much never case any problem.
TBH OP I don't give a shit about these neo naziz, I bet they are completely harmless however I do am afraid of all the love for left wing extremist group who take it on themselves to hurt everyone that is to the right side
There are in fact violent left-wing extremists but the point is, their violence (at least thats the case in germany) is pointed against materialistic goods (luxury cars...) or the government (attacks on policemen during riots). Not a single person died because of this in the last 20 years in germany. (Not that I want to defend this, just to put it in perspective)
On the other hand we have 149 cases of racist motivated murder in germany since 1990. 10 of wich were carefully planed and executed by a terrorist group who calls themselves NSU and even made a video about it.
Are you sure this is true and not a single person died from left wing extremist violence? I do vaguely remember the bader meinhoff gruppe and the Raf (rotte armee fraction, the succesor of the Bader meinhoff gruppe) and i also vaguely remember that they killed at least one industrial leader in germany.
They did yes, not in the past 20 years though. Which is in stark contrast to the ~ 150 deaths attributed to extreme right ideology over the same time. Which is what esperanto was saying.
Even before the body count for the entire RAF is 34, many of which were RAF themselves. The now infamous NSU killed 10 people just over the past 10 years.
Germany has 80 million inhabitants and 2.5 rightwing murders every year and yet you speak of rightwing extremism like it would be everywhere and omnipresent. Your argumentation is totally onesided, misinforming and build up on fearmongering on fox news level.
Im 24 now and lived in Germany from age 4-6, I remember milking cows, awesome trains, sick chocolate and people calling me and my mum african dogs (I'm half Thai). Before turning 10 I lived in 8 different countries, 4 of them in Europe and Germany was not the worst racial hatred I experienced, heck we have a spokesperson for asian hatred that gets too much face time on TV for my liking in Australia which is supposedly a multicultural haven. Morons are everywhere and this fucken racial bigotry needs to end, it makes no sense. Will it take an alien invasion for humanity to band together and realise we are all human like some sci-fi movie? If so we probably deserved to be wiped out by said Extraterrestrials.
On November 13 2012 00:20 Rannasha wrote: Far-right xenophobic populism has been on the rise this past decade all across Europe. Germany is no exception in the matter, though they may have a different view on things due to their history.
I do feel that in the current day and age, with global communication accessible to anyone in developed countries, it would be very hard for a Nazi-like party to gain total control over a country like they did in Germany in the 1930's. Nevertheless, it's something to be wary about.
What I find funny is when someone points out the downright failed state of the multicultural society of European nations you are suddenly a xenophobe populist and a nazi.
Is it wrong to point out that 3rd world immigrants out of africa and the Middle East / North Africa have failed to bring any contribution to Europe?
High wellfare abuse, high crime, low employment, no integration yet when a sane person points this out he is a bigot / racist / nazi. Immigrants have brought the wellfare state of the 70's to the brink of collapse but better not point this out.
Amount of nazi's in europe? Near zero I can imagine, amount of people sick of a failed multicultural state ? a lot.
The thing is that immigration and other social issues you mentioned have next to nothing to do with culture, and it's a fallacy to use those assumptions as arguments to reject the idea of multiculturalism and cultural acceptance.
Most immigrants you describe aren't like that because of their cultural background, they're like that mostly because of their (or their parents') socioeconomic background. Hence blaming it on multiculturalism and identifying people as problematic based on their cultural background does make one a bit of a xenophobe.
On November 14 2012 13:26 Cyber_Cheese wrote: Well, I can't speak for everyone, but. All I ever hear about with nazis is how terrible this and that are, I feel like I've only ever heard one side of the argument. It's not too dissimilar with things like the twin towers and the Iraq war. I really want to hear the perspective of the people being ostracised sometimes, especially with nazi's. -Out of the loop-
On November 13 2012 00:20 Rannasha wrote: Far-right xenophobic populism has been on the rise this past decade all across Europe. Germany is no exception in the matter, though they may have a different view on things due to their history.
I do feel that in the current day and age, with global communication accessible to anyone in developed countries, it would be very hard for a Nazi-like party to gain total control over a country like they did in Germany in the 1930's. Nevertheless, it's something to be wary about.
What I find funny is when someone points out the downright failed state of the multicultural society of European nations you are suddenly a xenophobe populist and a nazi.
Is it wrong to point out that 3rd world immigrants out of africa and the Middle East / North Africa have failed to bring any contribution to Europe?
High wellfare abuse, high crime, low employment, no integration yet when a sane person points this out he is a bigot / racist / nazi. Immigrants have brought the wellfare state of the 70's to the brink of collapse but better not point this out.
Amount of nazi's in europe? Near zero I can imagine, amount of people sick of a failed multicultural state ? a lot.
The thing is that immigration and other social issues you mentioned have next to nothing to do with culture, and it's a fallacy to use those assumptions as arguments to reject the idea of multiculturalism and cultural acceptance.
Most immigrants you describe aren't like that because of their cultural background, they're like that mostly because of their (or their parents') socioeconomic background. Hence blaming it on multiculturalism and identifying people as problematic based on their cultural background does make one a bit of a xenophobe.
So, you are telling me that failure to integrate is caused by socioeconomic factors and not cultural ones? How about imams and Islamic groups who advocate non-integration and wish to live separately from the non-Islamic population. Or the establishing of Islamic courts outside national law? Do these things not counteract integration? Are these socioeconomic factors or cultural?
On November 13 2012 00:20 Rannasha wrote: Far-right xenophobic populism has been on the rise this past decade all across Europe. Germany is no exception in the matter, though they may have a different view on things due to their history.
I do feel that in the current day and age, with global communication accessible to anyone in developed countries, it would be very hard for a Nazi-like party to gain total control over a country like they did in Germany in the 1930's. Nevertheless, it's something to be wary about.
What I find funny is when someone points out the downright failed state of the multicultural society of European nations you are suddenly a xenophobe populist and a nazi.
Is it wrong to point out that 3rd world immigrants out of africa and the Middle East / North Africa have failed to bring any contribution to Europe?
High wellfare abuse, high crime, low employment, no integration yet when a sane person points this out he is a bigot / racist / nazi. Immigrants have brought the wellfare state of the 70's to the brink of collapse but better not point this out.
Amount of nazi's in europe? Near zero I can imagine, amount of people sick of a failed multicultural state ? a lot.
The thing is that immigration and other social issues you mentioned have next to nothing to do with culture, and it's a fallacy to use those assumptions as arguments to reject the idea of multiculturalism and cultural acceptance.
Most immigrants you describe aren't like that because of their cultural background, they're like that mostly because of their (or their parents') socioeconomic background. Hence blaming it on multiculturalism and identifying people as problematic based on their cultural background does make one a bit of a xenophobe.
If that was true, why don't we have similar problems with immigrants from Poland, Japan or France? I think culture contributes greatly to the problem even though socioeconomic background is the trigger. The problem is not their culture itself (or their 'race' or whatever you want to use as 'group-marker') but the fact that the welfare state is counterproductive for assimilation. You just don't need to work to get a flat, a Tv, booze, internet etc. So why should these people bother? Also I think (not entirely sure) it's common knowledge that multiculturalism has failed at least on an economic scale. I think someone bothered to calculate the numbers for Norway oder Denmark somewhere? You would not be allowed to do that in Germany, but that doesn't change the fact that it was 'a bad idea' from the beginning.
You are allowed to calculate anything you want in Germany. Pretty much the only things you are not allowed to do in regards to free speech is using symbols of organisations that are anticonstitutional, planning to overthrow the constitution, and denying the holocaust happened. (Of course there is stuff like slander too, but that is not the point here)
On November 13 2012 00:20 Rannasha wrote: Far-right xenophobic populism has been on the rise this past decade all across Europe. Germany is no exception in the matter, though they may have a different view on things due to their history.
I do feel that in the current day and age, with global communication accessible to anyone in developed countries, it would be very hard for a Nazi-like party to gain total control over a country like they did in Germany in the 1930's. Nevertheless, it's something to be wary about.
What I find funny is when someone points out the downright failed state of the multicultural society of European nations you are suddenly a xenophobe populist and a nazi.
Is it wrong to point out that 3rd world immigrants out of africa and the Middle East / North Africa have failed to bring any contribution to Europe?
High wellfare abuse, high crime, low employment, no integration yet when a sane person points this out he is a bigot / racist / nazi. Immigrants have brought the wellfare state of the 70's to the brink of collapse but better not point this out.
Amount of nazi's in europe? Near zero I can imagine, amount of people sick of a failed multicultural state ? a lot.
The thing is that immigration and other social issues you mentioned have next to nothing to do with culture, and it's a fallacy to use those assumptions as arguments to reject the idea of multiculturalism and cultural acceptance.
Most immigrants you describe aren't like that because of their cultural background, they're like that mostly because of their (or their parents') socioeconomic background. Hence blaming it on multiculturalism and identifying people as problematic based on their cultural background does make one a bit of a xenophobe.
If that was true, why don't we have similar problems with immigrants from Poland, Japan or France? I think culture contributes greatly to the problem even though socioeconomic background is the trigger. The problem is not their culture itself (or their 'race' or whatever you want to use as 'group-marker') but the fact that the welfare state is counterproductive for assimilation. You just don't need to work to get a flat, a Tv, booze, internet etc. So why should these people bother? Also I think (not entirely sure) it's common knowledge that multiculturalism has failed at least on an economic scale. I think someone bothered to calculate the numbers for Norway oder Denmark somewhere? You would not be allowed to do that in Germany, but that doesn't change the fact that it was 'a bad idea' from the beginning.
Ironically, many Asian countries have very strict immigration controls and are very homogeneous. I often wonder why the ire isn't directed toward their racist ways, also? /shrug
The problem as you identified isn't multi-culturalism per se, but the Welfare State. If you observe many millions of poor people flooding into your countries and contributing little while taking much, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the cause and effect relationship that the natives or indigenous population won't generally take a strong liking to this sort of behavior.
Open borders and State Welfare do not mix. I am an advocate for open borders, and no Welfare, which worked just fine for America for over a hundred years. Social Democrats are a pox - ruin, social strife, and chaos always follow in their path. The surest way to destroy a country is for the population to vote themselves the public treasury and their fellow neighbors property, and then in the same breath open the doors to the world for them to come in and enjoy in the pillaging. A successful, stable, and sustainable country it doth not make.
The posts from Americans about ethnic Germans being genetically coded for xenophobic violence and expansionist action are as ironic as they are misguided. The prevailing pseudo-genetics that Nazi Germany was such a hot bed for have lomg simce been scientifically discredited.
Lets say, however, for the sake of argument, that ethnic Germans do display militaristic and xenophobic tendencies due to genetics. What do we do about the tens of millions of American Germans? As the single largest American ethnic group by a large margin, ethnic Germans in the US should pose a huge threat to world stability. Should America be disarmed? After all, we can see what mad American German warmongers like Ike Eisenhower have done...
On November 13 2012 00:20 Rannasha wrote: Far-right xenophobic populism has been on the rise this past decade all across Europe. Germany is no exception in the matter, though they may have a different view on things due to their history.
I do feel that in the current day and age, with global communication accessible to anyone in developed countries, it would be very hard for a Nazi-like party to gain total control over a country like they did in Germany in the 1930's. Nevertheless, it's something to be wary about.
What I find funny is when someone points out the downright failed state of the multicultural society of European nations you are suddenly a xenophobe populist and a nazi.
Is it wrong to point out that 3rd world immigrants out of africa and the Middle East / North Africa have failed to bring any contribution to Europe?
High wellfare abuse, high crime, low employment, no integration yet when a sane person points this out he is a bigot / racist / nazi. Immigrants have brought the wellfare state of the 70's to the brink of collapse but better not point this out.
Amount of nazi's in europe? Near zero I can imagine, amount of people sick of a failed multicultural state ? a lot.
The thing is that immigration and other social issues you mentioned have next to nothing to do with culture, and it's a fallacy to use those assumptions as arguments to reject the idea of multiculturalism and cultural acceptance.
Most immigrants you describe aren't like that because of their cultural background, they're like that mostly because of their (or their parents') socioeconomic background. Hence blaming it on multiculturalism and identifying people as problematic based on their cultural background does make one a bit of a xenophobe.
If that was true, why don't we have similar problems with immigrants from Poland, Japan or France? I think culture contributes greatly to the problem even though socioeconomic background is the trigger. The problem is not their culture itself (or their 'race' or whatever you want to use as 'group-marker') but the fact that the welfare state is counterproductive for assimilation. You just don't need to work to get a flat, a Tv, booze, internet etc. So why should these people bother? Also I think (not entirely sure) it's common knowledge that multiculturalism has failed at least on an economic scale. I think someone bothered to calculate the numbers for Norway oder Denmark somewhere? You would not be allowed to do that in Germany, but that doesn't change the fact that it was 'a bad idea' from the beginning.
I'm pretty sure Polish or Lithuanian immigrants aren't looked upon too favorably in the UK for example.
When it comes to Middle Eastern countries, I think a distinction needs to be made between how they've been governed over the last century or so, and what their traditional identity and culture is.
Moreover, while many people choose to come to Europe to pursue material gain and improve their quality of life, many (if not as many) also come to Europe to escape from the oppressive laws and radical Islamism at home, and they're much less likely to follow the same behavior patterns as the former group and much more likely to contribute to the society.
Solving the issue of immigration involves finding a way of accepting less (or none) of the former, and more of the latter, not lumping all of them in one, undesirable group because of where they come from or what their name sounds like.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
On November 13 2012 00:20 Rannasha wrote: Far-right xenophobic populism has been on the rise this past decade all across Europe. Germany is no exception in the matter, though they may have a different view on things due to their history.
I do feel that in the current day and age, with global communication accessible to anyone in developed countries, it would be very hard for a Nazi-like party to gain total control over a country like they did in Germany in the 1930's. Nevertheless, it's something to be wary about.
What I find funny is when someone points out the downright failed state of the multicultural society of European nations you are suddenly a xenophobe populist and a nazi.
Is it wrong to point out that 3rd world immigrants out of africa and the Middle East / North Africa have failed to bring any contribution to Europe?
High wellfare abuse, high crime, low employment, no integration yet when a sane person points this out he is a bigot / racist / nazi. Immigrants have brought the wellfare state of the 70's to the brink of collapse but better not point this out.
Amount of nazi's in europe? Near zero I can imagine, amount of people sick of a failed multicultural state ? a lot.
The thing is that immigration and other social issues you mentioned have next to nothing to do with culture, and it's a fallacy to use those assumptions as arguments to reject the idea of multiculturalism and cultural acceptance.
Most immigrants you describe aren't like that because of their cultural background, they're like that mostly because of their (or their parents') socioeconomic background. Hence blaming it on multiculturalism and identifying people as problematic based on their cultural background does make one a bit of a xenophobe.
If that was true, why don't we have similar problems with immigrants from Poland, Japan or France? I think culture contributes greatly to the problem even though socioeconomic background is the trigger. The problem is not their culture itself (or their 'race' or whatever you want to use as 'group-marker') but the fact that the welfare state is counterproductive for assimilation. You just don't need to work to get a flat, a Tv, booze, internet etc. So why should these people bother? Also I think (not entirely sure) it's common knowledge that multiculturalism has failed at least on an economic scale. I think someone bothered to calculate the numbers for Norway oder Denmark somewhere? You would not be allowed to do that in Germany, but that doesn't change the fact that it was 'a bad idea' from the beginning.
Ironically, many Asian countries have very strict immigration controls and are very homogeneous. I often wonder why the ire isn't directed toward their racist ways, also? /shrug
The problem as you identified isn't multi-culturalism per se, but the Welfare State. If you observe many millions of poor people flooding into your countries and contributing little while taking much, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the cause and effect relationship that the natives or indigenous population won't generally take a strong liking to this sort of behavior.
Open borders and State Welfare do not mix. I am an advocate for open borders, and no Welfare, which worked just fine for America for over a hundred years. Social Democrats are a pox - ruin, social strife, and chaos always follow in their path. The surest way to destroy a country is for the population to vote themselves the public treasury and their fellow neighbors property, and then in the same breath open the doors to the world for them to come in and enjoy in the pillaging. A successful, stable, and sustainable country it doth not make.
Again funny how real world disagrees with you at every step.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
Obviously it is not impossible to drift towards right ideology, even with the German education system. And maybe you got the wrong impression, it's not like the teacher is standing in front of the class and states "nazis are evil incarnate" or twisting facts or anything, it is more that you learn how the Nazis came to power, what their political intentions were, how they killed off any political opposition, what war crimes they committed and of course about the holocaust. Of course you also learn that they built a lot of infrastructure (e.g. the highway system), that they created jobs etc - but you also learn how, why and at what cost. You discuss this in class, and obviously most students will then have a devastating opinion of Nazis and their ideology. Now obviously you could argue that that creates peer pressure, but you get presented with facts, and do not get indoctrinated as some people here make it out to seem.
I actually can't fathom how anyone that has learned what has happened in that time would defend their ideology or say they weren't so bad. For example the population of the east european countries was classified as slavic people and thus "Untermenschen", in the mind of the Nazis people way less worth than germanic people. If they were allowed to live on, then only as servants to their "master race". I mean seriously, how could anyone feel something different than despise for the Nazis?
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts.
If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters,
I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue.
Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
Obviously it is not impossible to drift towards right ideology, even with the German education system. And maybe you got the wrong impression, it's not like the teacher is standing in front of the class and states "nazis are evil incarnate" or twisting facts or anything, it is more that you learn how the Nazis came to power, what their political intentions were, how they killed off any political opposition, what war crimes they committed and of course about the holocaust. Of course you also learn that they build a lot of infrastructure (e.g. the highway system), that they created jobs etc - but you also learn how, why and at what cost. You discuss this in class, and obviously most students will then have a devastating opinion of Nazis and their ideology. Now obviously you could argue that that creates peer pressure, but you get presented with facts, and do not get indoctrinated as some people here make it out to seem.
I actually can't fathom how anyone that has learned what happened in that time would defend their ideology or say they weren't so bad. For example the population of the east european countries was classified as slavic people and thus "Untermenschen", in the mind of the Nazis people way less worth than germanic people. If they were allowed to live on, only as servants to their master race. I mean seriously, how could anyone feel something different than despise for the Nazis?
The last time someone mentioned history (as a subject of a school) in a room filled with postgraduate historians ( mostly university teachers and professors) everyone present had a good laugh. Most stuff teached there is plain wrong or an interpretation based on ideology. The problem is that most teachers (I know at least) are quite old, if you tell people stuff that historians came up with in the early 70s they are bound to be wrong or at least outdated on a lot of stuff. Ironically, while it is not uncommon to not (deliberatly) twist facts to make the kids hate a specific generation, it often happens. Most children don't have the mindset to understand how anyone can do that, concluding that they would never have acted that way (which is wrong). Also, there is a lot of asymmetry: the Jew-policy covers like 90% of the time between 1933 and 1945 and it always creates the impression that the German Empire indeed IS (or was) evil incarnate.
Bottom line: you don't need to twist facts, just leave 90% out, works equally fine.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts.
If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters,
I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue.
Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth.
You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough.
As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts.
If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters,
I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue.
Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth.
You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough.
As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism.
morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups.
On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote: Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
Subjective much. One can't define what's truly evil because that's purely based on one's own perception.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts.
If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters,
I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue.
Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth.
You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough.
As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism.
morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups.
I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person".
On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote: Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
Subjective much. One can't define what's truly evil because that's purely based on one's own perception.
There is no reason to define it. Evil is what overwhelming number of people consider evil. Of course this is simplified as my concept of evil is not really based on popularity contest, but rather on what biology dictates to us about what is and is not evil. Conscience, empathy, fairness all those concepts are biologically coded into our brains (and many animals). Those define our morality.
People know what is good and evil pretty instinctively and on things that we discuss in this thread agree in pretty one-sided fashion. It is not really subjective as biology forces it, it is not truly objective also, but why should it matter.
Holy crap, so much talking about such a pile of shitheads. To make it clear, even if the NPD had the power to take over Germany - which is just ridiculous - they wouldn't be smart enough to "pull a hitler" and fuck Europe over again.
I don't know if I should laugh about the complete nonsense some people post here based on stereotypes or bullshit argumentation.
Almost nobody seems to care about the circumstances that brought Hitler to power. Well if those circumstances (speak big-time economical depression) there are other things we should be worried about besides Nazis taking over Germany, because this time it will be on a global basis, not just in Germany.
The problem with the Nazi "uprising" in Germany is - IN MY OPINION - that no one has the balls to go on the streets and throw cobblestones anymore. Instead people express their anger through voting for "niche" parties and think the're doing the right thing.
The next big factor is mass media. Most people actually believe the crap that they're told by the "BILD" newspaper. It looks like only assaults by immigrants make the headline. You don't have to ask yourself, why some people get a wrong picture of foreigners. In Eastern Germany there's also a work problem. People from e.g. Poland come here and do jobs that are totally underpaid for a German citizen. First thing that comes to mind is asparagus cutting, or in general agricultural jobs that require handywork. Companies try to make their product as cheap as possible so they pay their workers as little as possible. Another factor are some foreigners themselves. The bad apples that ruin everything for those that just want to integrate themselves into society. As already said, mass media likes to report about those bad apples...
I think the reasons behind the uprising are to complex to discuss on an international forum like TL, because people without even the slightest clue try to post what they think. Don't get me wrong it is totally fine to post what you think, but you all can see how this thread got derailed.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts.
If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters,
I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue.
Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth.
You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough.
As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism.
morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups.
I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person".
The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts.
If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters,
I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue.
Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth.
You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough.
As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism.
morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups.
I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person".
The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about.
Discussing why genocides happen is not the same as saying morality is all relative and genocide might be good. Since we can pretty much be sure that such a big number of people are not all complete psychopaths, big prerequisite for genocides seems to be ideological brainwashing to make the target population not-really-same-as-us/not-really-human. After that thanks to our ability to override our instincts you can do evil things even when you are not completely evil person.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts.
If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters,
I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue.
Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth.
You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough.
As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism.
morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups.
I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person".
The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about.
Discussing why genocides happen is not the same as saying morality is all relative and genocide might be good. Since we can pretty much be sure that such a big number of people are not all complete psychopaths, big prerequisite for genocides seems to be ideological brainwashing to make the target population not-really-same-as-us/not-really-human. After that thanks to our ability to override our instincts you can do evil things even when you are not completely evil person.
so there was morality in our genes. And it magically popped up after ww2? (or was "found"?). And since that point, we know what is wrong and what is right. Everyone else just doesn't know, and our ancestors never knew. And, if (or rather: when) in the future, it happens again, everyone just went insane? Well, I am starting to see the ideological brainwashing, but on another side.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts.
If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters,
I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue.
Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth.
You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough.
As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism.
morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups.
I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person".
The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about.
You don't need to be a scholar to see that genocide is bad. While morality is subjective, anyone that argues genocides might be morally acceptable is a person that I'd call an idiot and morally despiccable and not worth to further discuss with. That's my own, personal and totally subjective standpoint.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts.
If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters,
I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue.
Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth.
You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough.
As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism.
morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups.
I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person".
The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about.
You don't need to be a scholar to see that genocide is bad. While morality is subjective, anyone that argues genocides might be morally acceptable is a person that I'd call an idiot and morally despiccable and not worth to further discuss with. That's my own, personal and totally subjective standpoint.
You seem to be confusing scientific (history is classified as a science in the german language@non-germans) approach with the standpoint of me personally. I never said that I like genocide or that I think it is or even can be good, but THIS opinion (and yours) is based on my own perception of what is morally acceptable. For most of the time, the human race didnt give a flying fuck about morality when it came to people they did not see as part of their own society. I just tried point out that if you look at certain points in history you can NOT just say everyone is evil. That is highly unscientific and you would fail every course in history with that attitude.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts.
If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters,
I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue.
Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth.
You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough.
As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism.
morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups.
I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person".
The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about.
If you are interested in the subject, science labels this topic "group related human hostility". Myriad of papers and hypothesises.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts.
If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters,
I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue.
Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth.
You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough.
As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism.
morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups.
I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person".
The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about.
._. it just means that the human psyche is manipulable and that morality or logic systems innate to human beings are not enforced absolutely or universally, similar to any other animal. Being a scholar or being more intelligent doesn't make you "more" moral, it just means that you can formulate more complex ideas and logic constructs for your morality system. An intelligent person can still be completely ill informed or consciously make the decision to undertake immoral actions, if anything a more complex array of immoral (along with moral) actions are available to him as the result of having the tools to formulate such ideas.
When it comes down to it all it tells us is that we as a species still haven't evolved past the societal constructs of basic social mammals and it's possible to define the limit / scope of the group that we care about arbitrarily due to how complex and gifted our intellect is. If you have no stake or do not consider the party that you are infringing human at all then you can commit any combination of atrocious behavior because that's not even with in your morality system, we don't exert the same set of rules for humans as we do to animals which we can readily label as food, entertainment, or pests. Extending that definition to people who aren't like us, have offended or hurt us, are ideologically different in the most principled ways isn't difficult at all.
On November 15 2012 05:36 ACrow wrote: You don't need to be a scholar to see that genocide is bad. While morality is subjective, anyone that argues genocides might be morally acceptable is a person that I'd call an idiot and morally despiccable and not worth to further discuss with. That's my own, personal and totally subjective standpoint.
And ignorant, narrow-minded and all in all uneducated. But whatever..
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts.
If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters,
I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue.
Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth.
You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough.
As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism.
morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups.
I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person".
The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about.
._. it just means that the human psyche is manipulable and that morality or logic systems innate to human beings are not enforced absolutely or universally, similar to any other animal. Being a scholar or being more intelligent doesn't make you "more" moral, it just means that you can formulate more complex ideas and logic constructs for your morality system. An intelligent person can still be completely ill informed or consciously make the decision to undertake immoral actions, if anything a more complex array of immoral (along with moral) actions are available to him as the result of having the tools to formulate such ideas.
When it comes down to it all it tells us is that we as a species still haven't evolved past the societal constructs of basic social mammals and it's possible to define the limit / scope of the group that we care about arbitrarily due to how complex and gifted our intellect is. If you have no stake or do not consider the party that you are infringing human at all then you can commit any combination of atrocious behavior because that's not even with in your morality system, we don't exert the same set of rules for humans as we do to animals which we can readily label as food, entertainment, or pests. Extending that definition to people who aren't like us, have offended or hurt us, are ideologically different in the most principled ways isn't difficult at all.
I don't get why you used that smiley? I think your bottom line is the same as mine.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts.
If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters,
I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue.
Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth.
You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough.
As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism.
morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups.
I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person".
The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about.
If you are interested in the subject, science labels this topic "group related human hostility". Myriad of papers and hypothesises.
Thanks. I did some courses on that matter at university, but I prefer the historical approach over the social-psychological one. It is an interesting topic though.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts.
If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters,
I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue.
Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth.
You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough.
As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism.
morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups.
I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person".
The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about.
Discussing why genocides happen is not the same as saying morality is all relative and genocide might be good. Since we can pretty much be sure that such a big number of people are not all complete psychopaths, big prerequisite for genocides seems to be ideological brainwashing to make the target population not-really-same-as-us/not-really-human. After that thanks to our ability to override our instincts you can do evil things even when you are not completely evil person.
so there was morality in our genes. And it magically popped up after ww2? (or was "found"?). And since that point, we know what is wrong and what is right. Everyone else just doesn't know, and our ancestors never knew. And, if (or rather: when) in the future, it happens again, everyone just went insane? Well, I am starting to see the ideological brainwashing, but on another side.
Did you even read my post ? I posited hypothesis why genocides happen even though they are against most people's moral code. So no it did not pop up after second world war, if you presented nazi actions to a person from 19th century he would have the same to say about it as us today. Our ancestors 10000 years ago had the same basic moral code as we do. Do you know that most murderers actually consider murder bad, they just override their moral instinct. So why are you surprised that even though we have morality encoded into our genes we still do things that are not in accordance with it ? The only thing that changed throughout the history is that we are treating bigger and bigger chunks of people as we would treat people close to us. Morality remains the same, we just apply it to bigger groups of people as time goes on. We do less of the : "paint the others as not-really-same-as-us/not-really-human" as I said in my previous post.
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts.
If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters,
I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue.
Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth.
You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough.
As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism.
morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups.
I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person".
The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about.
You don't need to be a scholar to see that genocide is bad. While morality is subjective, anyone that argues genocides might be morally acceptable is a person that I'd call an idiot and morally despiccable and not worth to further discuss with. That's my own, personal and totally subjective standpoint.
You seem to be confusing scientific (history is classified as a science in the german language@non-germans) approach with the standpoint of me personally. I never said that I like genocide or that I think it is or even can be good, but THIS opinion (and yours) is based on my own perception of what is morally acceptable. For most of the time, the human race didnt give a flying fuck about morality when it came to people they did not see as part of their own society. I just tried point out that if you look at certain points in history you can NOT just say everyone is evil. That is highly unscientific and you would fail every course in history with that attitude.
How would I fail a history course when I argue my own interpretation of morality? That'd hardly be the topic of the course. And if you want to discuss morality from the perspecitve of the time period they were in, then I'd make the argument that there were contemporaries of the holocaust that saw the actions of the Nazis very much as morally 'evil' as well, just watch the black&white video recordings of the GI's that discovered the KZs and the multitude of testimonies of contemporaries that were horrified by the industrialized way that human beings were gased. By pretty much any definition of moral that I know of, the actions of the Nazis were morally corrupt, from today's perspective, as well from the perspective of a person living at that time. I don't deny that there were a plentitude of genocides before and sadly there will probably be more to come, but saying humanity in general doesn't care about this, is something I don't want to accept and is also something I doubt has been scientifically proven... We are being very off-topic here, but I got the (maybe wrong, if so then I apologize) impression that you are somehow defending adhering to Nazi ideology, which is something that really baffles me.
On November 15 2012 05:36 ACrow wrote: You don't need to be a scholar to see that genocide is bad. While morality is subjective, anyone that argues genocides might be morally acceptable is a person that I'd call an idiot and morally despiccable and not worth to further discuss with. That's my own, personal and totally subjective standpoint.
And ignorant, narrow-minded and all in all uneducated. But whatever..
Then please enlighten me why you would think a genocide might be morally acceptable. I'm all ears.
On November 13 2012 00:36 BluePanther wrote: For all the comments about how America is too far right politically, Europe always has this problem and we never really do.
You wish that we could claim to never have problems with hate crimes, xenophobia, or political extremists convincing others of their radical views...
On November 15 2012 05:36 ACrow wrote: You don't need to be a scholar to see that genocide is bad. While morality is subjective, anyone that argues genocides might be morally acceptable is a person that I'd call an idiot and morally despiccable and not worth to further discuss with. That's my own, personal and totally subjective standpoint.
And ignorant, narrow-minded and all in all uneducated. But whatever..
Then please enlighten me why you would think a genocide might be morally acceptable. I'm all ears.
Because genocide follows the same rule, which all of nature follows: The strongest survive. Let's imagine: Your country is poor, in a huge famine. Your little brother already starved, you are skinny as a stick. But then there are those people, in a neighboring country, who are wealthy, but they won't give you anything, just because. All the people in your country, filled with hunger and anger begin to hate those other people, because they don't care about you. Your government, desperate, invades that other country. This country obviously fights back, a war ensues. Your country wins the war, but not after killing basically all of the other country's population. You get to eat again, get to sleep again, without having the fear to wake up next to your dead sister. And you WILL think it was acceptable to kill those other people you don't know anything about, because it secured your own survival. You WILL think this genocide was justified. That's nature.
Winning a war and committing genocide are not even remotely the same thing. In a historic sense, genocide is almost always reserved to describe the totally lopsided killing of a population by another, not some precipitation of a zero-sum war's consequences.
On November 15 2012 05:36 ACrow wrote: You don't need to be a scholar to see that genocide is bad. While morality is subjective, anyone that argues genocides might be morally acceptable is a person that I'd call an idiot and morally despiccable and not worth to further discuss with. That's my own, personal and totally subjective standpoint.
And ignorant, narrow-minded and all in all uneducated. But whatever..
Then please enlighten me why you would think a genocide might be morally acceptable. I'm all ears.
Because genocide follows the same rule, which all of nature follows: The strongest survive. Let's imagine: Your country is poor, in a huge famine. Your little brother already starved, you are skinny as a stick. But then there are those people, in a neighboring country, who are wealthy, but they won't give you anything, just because. All the people in your country, filled with hunger and anger begin to hate those other people, because they don't care about you. Your government, desperate, invades that other country. This country obviously fights back, a war ensues. Your country wins the war, but not after killing basically all of the other country's population. You get to eat again, get to sleep again, without having the fear to wake up next to your dead sister. And you WILL think it was acceptable to kill those other people you don't know anything about, because it secured your own survival. You WILL think this genocide was justified. That's nature.
Winning a war and committing genocide are not even remotely the same thing. In a historic sense, genocide is almost always reserved to describe the totally lopsided killing of a population by another, not some precipitation of a zero-sum war's consequences.
Yup I realized.
But what I built as an image is what's in one's head, not what is true. Because what's true and what's not doesn't influence morals. They are influenced by what you THINK is true. And in this situation, you percieve killing all of those people for your own survival as acceptable. And that's when genocide is morally acceptable. Obviously I just halfassed this example because I don't want to write 3000words just to get my point across clearer, if not necessary.
On November 15 2012 03:39 Aterons_toss wrote: [quote]
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts.
If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters,
I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue.
Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth.
You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough.
As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism.
morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups.
I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person".
The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about.
Discussing why genocides happen is not the same as saying morality is all relative and genocide might be good. Since we can pretty much be sure that such a big number of people are not all complete psychopaths, big prerequisite for genocides seems to be ideological brainwashing to make the target population not-really-same-as-us/not-really-human. After that thanks to our ability to override our instincts you can do evil things even when you are not completely evil person.
so there was morality in our genes. And it magically popped up after ww2? (or was "found"?). And since that point, we know what is wrong and what is right. Everyone else just doesn't know, and our ancestors never knew. And, if (or rather: when) in the future, it happens again, everyone just went insane? Well, I am starting to see the ideological brainwashing, but on another side.
Did you even read my post ? I posited hypothesis why genocides happen even though they are against most people's moral code. So no it did not pop up after second world war, if you presented nazi actions to a person from 19th century he would have the same to say about it as us today. Our ancestors 10000 years ago had the same basic moral code as we do. Do you know that most murderers actually consider murder bad, they just override their moral instinct. So why are you surprised that even though we have morality encoded into our genes we still do things that are not in accordance with it ? The only thing that changed throughout the history is that we are treating bigger and bigger chunks of people as we would treat people close to us. Morality remains the same, we just apply it to bigger groups of people as time goes on. We do less of the : "paint the others as not-really-same-as-us/not-really-human" as I said in my previous post.
I think morality is always applied. However, if we use different definitions of morality, we probably just have to agree to disagree.
On November 15 2012 03:39 Aterons_toss wrote: [quote]
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts.
If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters,
I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue.
Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth.
You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough.
As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism.
morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups.
I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person".
The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about.
You don't need to be a scholar to see that genocide is bad. While morality is subjective, anyone that argues genocides might be morally acceptable is a person that I'd call an idiot and morally despiccable and not worth to further discuss with. That's my own, personal and totally subjective standpoint.
You seem to be confusing scientific (history is classified as a science in the german language@non-germans) approach with the standpoint of me personally. I never said that I like genocide or that I think it is or even can be good, but THIS opinion (and yours) is based on my own perception of what is morally acceptable. For most of the time, the human race didnt give a flying fuck about morality when it came to people they did not see as part of their own society. I just tried point out that if you look at certain points in history you can NOT just say everyone is evil. That is highly unscientific and you would fail every course in history with that attitude.
How would I fail a history course when I argue my own interpretation of morality? That'd hardly be the topic of the course. And if you want to discuss morality from the perspecitve of the time period they were in, then I'd make the argument that there were contemporaries of the holocaust that saw the actions of the Nazis very much as morally 'evil' as well, just watch the black&white video recordings of the GI's that discovered the KZs and the multitude of testimonies of contemporaries that were horrified by the industrialized way that human beings were gased. By pretty much any definition of moral that I know of, the actions of the Nazis were morally corrupt, from today's perspective, as well from the perspective of a person living at that time. I don't deny that there were a plentitude of genocides before and sadly there will probably be more to come, but saying humanity in general doesn't care about this, is something I don't want to accept and is also something I doubt has been scientifically proven... We are being very off-topic here, but I got the (maybe wrong, if so then I apologize) impression that you are somehow defending adhering to Nazi ideology, which is something that really baffles me.
I won't defend an ideology that would have killed me on the spot. However, I don't like scientific approaches that disregard neutrality. If you want to make a point about your 'morality' do that in ethics or in philosophy and not in history. History should be regarded as a neutral entitiy, to extract as much accurate information as possible and learn from it. Today, research about the second world war is heavily restricted in Germany. The outcome is clear beforehand, getting exact numbers is close to impossible (and if you ask professors where they even got their numbers in the first place, you just made a new enemy, because they don't have a source, just an ideology and estimates from the 40's or 50's). This is unworthy of a liberal and democratic country.
On November 15 2012 06:59 sephiria wrote: I won't defend an ideology that would have killed me on the spot. However, I don't like scientific approaches that disregard neutrality.
Disregarding neutrality means disregarding science and turning it into belief. That's why morals are believes, and that's why morals are only limited to imagination and thus individual.
"I posted hypothesis why genocides happen even though they are against most people's moral code."
Its pretty simple, humans have 3 brains. A reptile brain, a mammal brain, and then the human brain. The human brain holds the reason, (and with that moralty i asume), the mammal brain holds the emotions, and the reptile brain holds the primitive instincts. These 3 brains operate more or less independant,(thats why you can never realy get rid of negative emotions by just reasoning) The human brain is not always in control of us,so thats why sane people can at times operate without moralty.
On November 14 2012 13:26 Cyber_Cheese wrote: Well, I can't speak for everyone, but. All I ever hear about with nazis is how terrible this and that are, I feel like I've only ever heard one side of the argument. It's not too dissimilar with things like the twin towers and the Iraq war. I really want to hear the perspective of the people being ostracised sometimes, especially with nazi's. -Out of the loop-
Unless you believe someone can actually justify genocide I'm not sure you're going to hear a meaningful other side. It's not just a matter of perspective (or perhaps it is, but the perspective is the one that most of us have now adopted for good reason)... they committed some of the most terrible crimes conceivable in the eyes of a mostly liberal population with a belief in equal rights and anti-discrimination.
The perspective of the Nazi's is I guess that they were trying to further human evolution by breeding a superior race. They were doing humanity a "good" but this isn't supported by science. There's nothing genetically superior about Aryans.
Why are you guessing what it might be? How does that in any way shape or form try to understand? For example, I have heard that the holocaust began by transporting most of the Jews out of the country via train to Israel, and only really begun actually being a holocaust when the Germans had their backs against the wall. But that's not something you would know by guessing. I'd like to hear more.
How much of it was the decisions of Hitler himself? Did his underlings decided on the holocaust without him knowing perhaps? Why were the nazis made to feel like they had to declare war on the world? Why didn't they stop before Poland where it was safe? If Hitler's to blame and not the majority of the German population who decided to fight for him, why was there no revolutionries? Or was there? Did the allies have war crimes just as vicious that were covered up because they won?
The point is, there's so many things I don't know about it. Blindly agreeing with what they teach you in school is a recipe for disaster. The winners wrote history.
On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote: [quote] Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts.
If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters,
I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue.
Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth.
You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough.
As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism.
morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups.
I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person".
The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about.
Discussing why genocides happen is not the same as saying morality is all relative and genocide might be good. Since we can pretty much be sure that such a big number of people are not all complete psychopaths, big prerequisite for genocides seems to be ideological brainwashing to make the target population not-really-same-as-us/not-really-human. After that thanks to our ability to override our instincts you can do evil things even when you are not completely evil person.
so there was morality in our genes. And it magically popped up after ww2? (or was "found"?). And since that point, we know what is wrong and what is right. Everyone else just doesn't know, and our ancestors never knew. And, if (or rather: when) in the future, it happens again, everyone just went insane? Well, I am starting to see the ideological brainwashing, but on another side.
Did you even read my post ? I posited hypothesis why genocides happen even though they are against most people's moral code. So no it did not pop up after second world war, if you presented nazi actions to a person from 19th century he would have the same to say about it as us today. Our ancestors 10000 years ago had the same basic moral code as we do. Do you know that most murderers actually consider murder bad, they just override their moral instinct. So why are you surprised that even though we have morality encoded into our genes we still do things that are not in accordance with it ? The only thing that changed throughout the history is that we are treating bigger and bigger chunks of people as we would treat people close to us. Morality remains the same, we just apply it to bigger groups of people as time goes on. We do less of the : "paint the others as not-really-same-as-us/not-really-human" as I said in my previous post.
I think morality is always applied. However, if we use different definitions of morality, we probably just have to agree to disagree.
On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote: [quote] Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts.
If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters,
I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue.
Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth.
You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough.
As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism.
morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups.
I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person".
The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about.
You don't need to be a scholar to see that genocide is bad. While morality is subjective, anyone that argues genocides might be morally acceptable is a person that I'd call an idiot and morally despiccable and not worth to further discuss with. That's my own, personal and totally subjective standpoint.
You seem to be confusing scientific (history is classified as a science in the german language@non-germans) approach with the standpoint of me personally. I never said that I like genocide or that I think it is or even can be good, but THIS opinion (and yours) is based on my own perception of what is morally acceptable. For most of the time, the human race didnt give a flying fuck about morality when it came to people they did not see as part of their own society. I just tried point out that if you look at certain points in history you can NOT just say everyone is evil. That is highly unscientific and you would fail every course in history with that attitude.
How would I fail a history course when I argue my own interpretation of morality? That'd hardly be the topic of the course. And if you want to discuss morality from the perspecitve of the time period they were in, then I'd make the argument that there were contemporaries of the holocaust that saw the actions of the Nazis very much as morally 'evil' as well, just watch the black&white video recordings of the GI's that discovered the KZs and the multitude of testimonies of contemporaries that were horrified by the industrialized way that human beings were gased. By pretty much any definition of moral that I know of, the actions of the Nazis were morally corrupt, from today's perspective, as well from the perspective of a person living at that time. I don't deny that there were a plentitude of genocides before and sadly there will probably be more to come, but saying humanity in general doesn't care about this, is something I don't want to accept and is also something I doubt has been scientifically proven... We are being very off-topic here, but I got the (maybe wrong, if so then I apologize) impression that you are somehow defending adhering to Nazi ideology, which is something that really baffles me.
I won't defend an ideology that would have killed me on the spot. However, I don't like scientific approaches that disregard neutrality. If you want to make a point about your 'morality' do that in ethics or in philosophy and not in history. History should be regarded as a neutral entitiy, to extract as much accurate information as possible and learn from it. Today, research about the second world war is heavily restricted in Germany. The outcome is clear beforehand, getting exact numbers is close to impossible (and if you ask professors where they even got their numbers in the first place, you just made a new enemy, because they don't have a source, just an ideology and estimates from the 40's or 50's). This is unworthy of a liberal and democratic country.
Morality is valuation of actions in terms of good and bad/wrong. You can do actions without ever attempting to do that valuation, or you can just ignore that as basically everyone does in their lives many times. I did many things I consider wrong, and I knew they were wrong when I was doing them, yet I did them. That is because ethical calculus can be overridden by many other criteria. I doubt we use different definitions of morality, I pretty much wrote it in the first sentence. I see no other definition that you can be talking about.
As for your other point, yes, history as a science should be objective and should not concern itself with moral judgments of the actors. But I have no idea how that is against anything I said. You can still call something in the past evil, it is just not part of discourse of historical science. It is just simply calling something as what it is as part of general discussion. Not everything that pertains to history is part of historical sciences. Ethical judgments are valid even when applied to the past. But even if we took historical perspective, what nazis did was evil even using criteria of that era, even criteria I would say most of German population of that time.
On November 15 2012 06:59 sephiria wrote: I won't defend an ideology that would have killed me on the spot. However, I don't like scientific approaches that disregard neutrality.
Disregarding neutrality means disregarding science and turning it into belief. That's why morals are believes, and that's why morals are only limited to imagination and thus individual.
So you are claiming that empathy, sense of fairness, conscience are completely non-biological phenomena, or are you going to argue that they do not play important part in defining morality ? And why are all moral systems in the world so limited in their core principles by being basically the same everywhere.
And why are you putting science against ethics, they have non-overlapping fields of application. You can easily objectively study history of nazi movements and at the same time say their actions were evil. The ethical statement is just not part of historical discourse, that's it.
On November 15 2012 07:50 Rassy wrote: "I posted hypothesis why genocides happen even though they are against most people's moral code."
Its pretty simple, humans have 3 brains. A reptile brain, a mammal brain, and then the human brain. The human brain holds the reason, (and with that moralty i asume), the mammal brain holds the emotions, and the reptile brain holds the primitive instincts. These 3 brains operate more or less independant,(thats why you can never realy get rid of negative emotions by just reasoning) The human brain is not always in control of us,so thats why sane people can at times operate without moralty.
I would say it is big oversimplification. For example many animals have already their moral codes. I would say it is more about competing valuations : is it good/moral thing to do vs will I get more rich by doing it vs will I be seen as desirable by potential mates vs .... . Different people have different weights placed on different areas thus someone can kill for money and yet consider it a bad thing to do. Just not bad enough. But, except complete psychopaths, people in general have very similar moral codes, that is why society is even possible.
The story about 3 different brains has some truth at the core, but deriving anything from it seems iffy as they are not really that independent and their interactions are extremely complex and still a lot is unknown.
On November 15 2012 06:59 sephiria wrote: Today, research about the second world war is heavily restricted in Germany. The outcome is clear beforehand, getting exact numbers is close to impossible (and if you ask professors where they even got their numbers in the first place, you just made a new enemy, because they don't have a source, just an ideology and estimates from the 40's or 50's). This is unworthy of a liberal and democratic country.
I am sorry can you explain that? I have worked in research on the Third Reich in Germany and it was nothing like that. I also don't know what you mean by "getting exact number is close to impossible". I experienced the exact opposite.
These have been popping up in my country as graffiti, must say I agree with the image.
But tbh a lot of neo-nazis join up because they lack friends/drinking buddies/want people to rage at them for their beliefs so they can get into fights. Very few real nazis actually join these gatherings, the real ones stay quiet and keep their views mostly to themselves. It's more of a stupid bored people gathering, and a result of the economic depression than a nazi parade, however we must keep it from getting out of hand nonetheless. People are bored, jobless and have nothing to lose, so they blame immigrants/jews/whatever.
Anyway, make the planet a better place - follow your leader.
On November 15 2012 06:59 sephiria wrote: Today, research about the second world war is heavily restricted in Germany. The outcome is clear beforehand, getting exact numbers is close to impossible (and if you ask professors where they even got their numbers in the first place, you just made a new enemy, because they don't have a source, just an ideology and estimates from the 40's or 50's). This is unworthy of a liberal and democratic country.
I am sorry can you explain that? I have worked in research on the Third Reich in Germany and it was nothing like that. I also don't know what you mean by "getting exact number is close to impossible". I experienced the exact opposite.
Yeah I'm pretty sure he's just talking out of his ass.
On November 15 2012 07:50 Rassy wrote: Its pretty simple, humans have 3 brains. A reptile brain, a mammal brain, and then the human brain. The human brain holds the reason, (and with that moralty i asume), the mammal brain holds the emotions, and the reptile brain holds the primitive instincts. These 3 brains operate more or less independant,(thats why you can never realy get rid of negative emotions by just reasoning) The human brain is not always in control of us,so thats why sane people can at times operate without moralty.
your text is a bit complicated for a common guy like me, referencing biology, philosophy and many other sciences (i guess) at the same time, but after reading it many times i think i understand it. so there really is a good reason why sane people sometimes dont act morally. This makes me happy. its the brains! the non-human brains are immoral! normal humans would never act like that with a good conscience, no no. you filled the equotation "human = good" with new life. it would be horrible if there would be another reason, but reading your explanation i am relieved. thank you!
On November 15 2012 07:50 Rassy wrote: Its pretty simple, humans have 3 brains. A reptile brain, a mammal brain, and then the human brain. The human brain holds the reason, (and with that moralty i asume), the mammal brain holds the emotions, and the reptile brain holds the primitive instincts. These 3 brains operate more or less independant,(thats why you can never realy get rid of negative emotions by just reasoning) The human brain is not always in control of us,so thats why sane people can at times operate without moralty.
your text is a bit complicated for a common guy like me, referencing biology, philosophy and many other sciences (i guess) at the same time, but after reading it many times i think i understand it. so there really is a good reason why sane people sometimes dont act morally. This makes me happy. its the brains! the non-human brains are immoral! normal humans would never act like that with a good conscience, no no. you filled the equotation "human = good" with new life. it would be horrible if there would be another reason, but reading your explanation i am relieved. thank you!
On November 15 2012 06:59 sephiria wrote: Today, research about the second world war is heavily restricted in Germany. The outcome is clear beforehand, getting exact numbers is close to impossible (and if you ask professors where they even got their numbers in the first place, you just made a new enemy, because they don't have a source, just an ideology and estimates from the 40's or 50's). This is unworthy of a liberal and democratic country.
I am sorry can you explain that? I have worked in research on the Third Reich in Germany and it was nothing like that. I also don't know what you mean by "getting exact number is close to impossible". I experienced the exact opposite.
agreed with zatic, obviously from my location I live in Austria, but it is easily possible to get numbers (as a researcher) here, and I know for a fact that you can order the same books through almost any german university.
Yes some aspects are restricted (if you want to cast doubts on the holocaust you better have some very impressive research to back that up), but we've had that discussion about the verbotsgesetzte before, no real reason to go over it again.
Summa summarum, if you want to write a research paper on WW 2 or any aspect of Nazi Germany, feel free. Of course it might be slightly difficult finding a topic which hasn't been done 200 times before, but that is another matter.
Why is the title of the topic a Nazi-Uprising? To me that implies some sort of revolt or rioting resulting in possible establishment of political control, but if something like that happened, I would hear about it on the news, so OP is just being a drama-queen?
On November 23 2012 06:35 Catch]22 wrote: Why is the title of the topic a Nazi-Uprising? To me that implies some sort of revolt or rioting resulting in possible establishment of political control, but if something like that happened, I would hear about it on the news, so OP is just being a drama-queen?
Nah, my guess is that it is just a translation error. The OP is german, and i assume he meant "Anstieg", which means "increase" or "raise", but if you translate the parts of the words on its own, "uprising" sounds pretty similar to what you get.
On November 15 2012 06:59 sephiria wrote: Today, research about the second world war is heavily restricted in Germany. The outcome is clear beforehand, getting exact numbers is close to impossible (and if you ask professors where they even got their numbers in the first place, you just made a new enemy, because they don't have a source, just an ideology and estimates from the 40's or 50's). This is unworthy of a liberal and democratic country.
I am sorry can you explain that? I have worked in research on the Third Reich in Germany and it was nothing like that. I also don't know what you mean by "getting exact number is close to impossible". I experienced the exact opposite.
agreed with zatic, obviously from my location I live in Austria, but it is easily possible to get numbers (as a researcher) here, and I know for a fact that you can order the same books through almost any german university.
Yes some aspects are restricted (if you want to cast doubts on the holocaust you better have some very impressive research to back that up), but we've had that discussion about the verbotsgesetzte before, no real reason to go over it again.
Summa summarum, if you want to write a research paper on WW 2 or any aspect of Nazi Germany, feel free. Of course it might be slightly difficult finding a topic which hasn't been done 200 times before, but that is another matter.
I deliberately try to avoid everything about WW2 in a professional environment, because I don't want to base my work on stuff I don't experience as waterproof. Problems I generally encountered are closely related to victim numbers on both sides. Namely the Rheinwiesenmassaker, the victim numbers of the Holocaust (these have always been a joke because they have been corrected like every few years between 1945 and 1990, also there were instances of pictures of Dresden's citizens sold as Holocaust victims, the last one probably qualifies as fraud but the main point still stands). And there is still the rumor of a neonazi testing the walls of auschwitz for gas residua. He couldn't find any but was arrested for illegal testing or sth. like that, the polish government repeated the tests but couldn't find anything, too. After that the issue just vanished. One of my university teachers, a respected historian who got his PHD about WW2 and was offered a proffessorship in his late 20's (which he declined) responded to me when confronted with my questions that there just exist proof for 1/20 of victims in the matter. The rest is pulled out of thin air. And he advised me not to contest the official numbers (even if I had proof) for obvious reasons. I don't say that everything is made up, I think it is way more likely that most things are true, what bothers me is that nobody seems to be allowed to contest that problem, thus, I will never take anyone seriously who got his degree by writing about these aspects of WW2 without presenting actual sources. (Concering that topic: books written by a historian are NOT facts, I am looking for sources not for a paper written by a green-party voter) There are even professors running around stating that they can proof that there was a 'Führerbefehl' concerning the Holocaust. As far as I know the Nazis were intelligent enough not to write anything down regarding that. So that statement immediately transforms the scientist into a party-goon. I am not interested in playing down the aspects of war or the atrocities comitted by organisations, people or nations (above I stated that I would have ended up in a gas chamber as well if I had lived in the 30s/40s). I am just a critical mind who does not want to accept unreasonable taboos.
On the matter of diversity of opinions in german universities I would like to point to the case of Martin van Creveld (regarded by the international community as a military genius) and his short appereance in Trier. He (as a professor) apparently was kicked out of the university because he presented a thesis which did not fit into feminist ideology. http://www.welt.de/kultur/history/article13693394/Wenn-Maenner-sich-schlagen-erregt-das-die-Frauen.html He basically says that men enjoy war and conflict and that women are attracted specifically to men successful in these conflicts.
I have to add that I personally have never had a problem with political correctness, though there was an arguement that occured because someone else in his first term said Reichskristallnacht and immediately someone was screaming nazi (though that was a student and not a professor)
Maybe I do perceive the general situation differently but I cant really test it because if I am right I'm playing with my future if I do. To the bold part: You either did not understand what I meant (well, I did not really explain that in my last post, so my fault) or you are not a historian.
Lets be honest. While nazism is full of racist shit and all about destroying everyone who is not good for nazi party, fascism is not that bad. Italy became a strong coutry economic wise because of fascism (and what is important Italy had not idea to start war with someone), Germany became one of the best economy in the world while being fascism country and everything ended bad because fascist way of improvement was changed to nazi way. So what I am talking about is: if those guys from neonazi party is about fascist way of development its ok and I understand why some people support it, of course it is really bad and stupid if they are all about nazi country. Also we should remember that Hitler started as a guy with fascism ideas and he was a great leader for Germany while he was stick to this ideas, he became a bad leader only after 1939 and him changing his mind towards world empire Germany and nazi ideas.
On November 15 2012 08:12 mcc wrote: But, except complete psychopaths, people in general have very similar moral codes, that is why society is even possible.
You repeat the same nonsense about morality over and over again no matter how many times you are disproved. I am beginning to wonder if you should have you own section on teamliquid where you can endlessly argue flawed points for the amusement of all.
On November 23 2012 07:53 sephiria wrote: There are even professors running around stating that they can proof that there was a 'Führerbefehl' concerning the Holocaust. As far as I know the Nazis were intelligent enough not to write anything down regarding that.
Sure they did. Lot of it was destroyed towards the end of course, but there is original documentation on the holocaust.
It is also possible to link this directly to Hitler. While there no single "Fuehrerbefehl" there is evidence linking him to the holocaust, for people who for some reason still doubt that.
One prominent example is the Jaegerbericht: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jäger_Report (Unfortunately the English Wikipedia site is somewhat brief, but it shouldn't be difficult to find English material on the web)
It's a written report on the holocaust in the baltic states. Jaeger received awards and decorations for his atrocities from Himmler and Hitler.
On November 15 2012 07:50 Rassy wrote: Its pretty simple, humans have 3 brains. A reptile brain, a mammal brain, and then the human brain. The human brain holds the reason, (and with that moralty i asume), the mammal brain holds the emotions, and the reptile brain holds the primitive instincts. These 3 brains operate more or less independant,(thats why you can never realy get rid of negative emotions by just reasoning) The human brain is not always in control of us,so thats why sane people can at times operate without moralty.
your text is a bit complicated for a common guy like me, referencing biology, philosophy and many other sciences (i guess) at the same time, but after reading it many times i think i understand it. so there really is a good reason why sane people sometimes dont act morally. This makes me happy. its the brains! the non-human brains are immoral! normal humans would never act like that with a good conscience, no no. you filled the equotation "human = good" with new life. it would be horrible if there would be another reason, but reading your explanation i am relieved. thank you!
ps: wanna hug?
Hmm, reading your response i begin to doubt you understood what i meant. it realy is not that complicated or groundbreaking, for manny people this is common sense. I definatly dont think that human=good good is something i cant define at all, to define good you need to be god. Just tried to explain why reasonable people sometimes do unreasonable things,maybe its a no brainer for most of the people here but seeing the lenghty discussion and manny questions about this i thought it might help to offer a reasonable and widely accepted explanation.
On November 15 2012 06:59 sephiria wrote: Today, research about the second world war is heavily restricted in Germany. The outcome is clear beforehand, getting exact numbers is close to impossible (and if you ask professors where they even got their numbers in the first place, you just made a new enemy, because they don't have a source, just an ideology and estimates from the 40's or 50's). This is unworthy of a liberal and democratic country.
I am sorry can you explain that? I have worked in research on the Third Reich in Germany and it was nothing like that. I also don't know what you mean by "getting exact number is close to impossible". I experienced the exact opposite.
agreed with zatic, obviously from my location I live in Austria, but it is easily possible to get numbers (as a researcher) here, and I know for a fact that you can order the same books through almost any german university.
Yes some aspects are restricted (if you want to cast doubts on the holocaust you better have some very impressive research to back that up), but we've had that discussion about the verbotsgesetzte before, no real reason to go over it again.
Summa summarum, if you want to write a research paper on WW 2 or any aspect of Nazi Germany, feel free. Of course it might be slightly difficult finding a topic which hasn't been done 200 times before, but that is another matter.
I deliberately try to avoid everything about WW2 in a professional environment, because I don't want to base my work on stuff I don't experience as waterproof. Problems I generally encountered are closely related to victim numbers on both sides. Namely the Rheinwiesenmassaker, the victim numbers of the Holocaust (these have always been a joke because they have been corrected like every few years between 1945 and 1990, also there were instances of pictures of Dresden's citizens sold as Holocaust victims, the last one probably qualifies as fraud but the main point still stands). And there is still the rumor of a neonazi testing the walls of auschwitz for gas residua. He couldn't find any but was arrested for illegal testing or sth. like that, the polish government repeated the tests but couldn't find anything, too. After that the issue just vanished. One of my university teachers, a respected historian who got his PHD about WW2 and was offered a proffessorship in his late 20's (which he declined) responded to me when confronted with my questions that there just exist proof for 1/20 of victims in the matter. The rest is pulled out of thin air. And he advised me not to contest the official numbers (even if I had proof) for obvious reasons. I don't say that everything is made up, I think it is way more likely that most things are true, what bothers me is that nobody seems to be allowed to contest that problem, thus, I will never take anyone seriously who got his degree by writing about these aspects of WW2 without presenting actual sources. (Concering that topic: books written by a historian are NOT facts, I am looking for sources not for a paper written by a green-party voter) There are even professors running around stating that they can proof that there was a 'Führerbefehl' concerning the Holocaust. As far as I know the Nazis were intelligent enough not to write anything down regarding that. So that statement immediately transforms the scientist into a party-goon. I am not interested in playing down the aspects of war or the atrocities comitted by organisations, people or nations (above I stated that I would have ended up in a gas chamber as well if I had lived in the 30s/40s). I am just a critical mind who does not want to accept unreasonable taboos.
On the matter of diversity of opinions in german universities I would like to point to the case of Martin van Creveld (regarded by the international community as a military genius) and his short appereance in Trier. He (as a professor) apparently was kicked out of the university because he presented a thesis which did not fit into feminist ideology. http://www.welt.de/kultur/history/article13693394/Wenn-Maenner-sich-schlagen-erregt-das-die-Frauen.html He basically says that men enjoy war and conflict and that women are attracted specifically to men successful in these conflicts.
I have to add that I personally have never had a problem with political correctness, though there was an arguement that occured because someone else in his first term said Reichskristallnacht and immediately someone was screaming nazi (though that was a student and not a professor)
Maybe I do perceive the general situation differently but I cant really test it because if I am right I'm playing with my future if I do. To the bold part: You either did not understand what I meant (well, I did not really explain that in my last post, so my fault) or you are not a historian.
I understand perfectly what you meant, but you seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. You can of course disagree with the material available, in fact as we both know it is considered part of the process to "doubt" your sources at almost every stop of the research, that does not mean there are sources available. I'd even grant you that many of those sources might be distorted or unprofessional, but it is still up to you as a researcher to prove them wrong. Victim numbers are an area I have not specifically worked in (unless you want to discuss military losses during the africa campaign, that one I wrote a paper about, including a lengthy chapter on how the "official" records are either fake (meaning the original record most likely got lost and was "replaced" by some file clerk during the NS regime) or were destroyed by the Nazis so you could not disprove their propaganda), but I can easily imagine you had difficulties to say the least. Frankly it is impossible to verify any specific victim number of any KZ, never mind people who might have been disposed off by the Gestapo without ever reaching any such institution simply because the records which exist are at best fragments. My own professors clearly state that, and will brook little discussion on that topic. I've had a lecture where a "well meaning" student confronted the professor with an extract from the Nürenberg Trials and all he did was laugh.
So yes, I'll easily agree that many of the numbers and theories running around even in the professional world, were either done by idiots, or heavily influenced by politics, but nowadays (as in the last 20 years) most works published in this area at least attempt to study things according to the guidelines of historic sciences.
If your interested in a longer discussion we can take this to pms (and German as well, because my English is lacking the proper theoretic terms), and I'll dig out my notes on the lectures and discuss with you the evolution of "Germanic" (meaning including austria) WW2 history, shortly summed up, anything before 1970 is basically worth shit, anything between 1970 and 90 might be usefull but needs to be examined very critically, then things become better