|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On November 23 2014 21:23 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 21:20 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:02 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:58 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:57 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:55 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:49 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:28 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
I'm not entirely sure by what logic that is supposed to work. Apart from your obvious aversion against germany. It's my aversion against germany to say that nazi were one of the most criminal. Yeah it's germanophobia to say that nazi germany is bad, but it's not francophobia to say that the FN is national socialist and facist. You guys are awesome. The logic was pretty simple : education and philosophy does not necessarily lead to morally good behaviors, so the fact that germany was educated is irrelevant to the flaw of nazism. Higher up and intellectuals were, too, very touched by the nazi ideology. I'm not sure who "you guys" are, i'm a single person who questioned an "argument" you made. Guess it's too much to ask for people to not act like twelve years old. Nobody disagrees that nazis were criminal. That's not what you said though. You said criminal population, not "nazis". If you like it or not, there's a huge difference, which you neglect for populistic reasons. Oh, and yeah, the FN is pretty national socialist (fascism comes with that). Yeah the nazis were just a handful sorry I should have said "the sect" that somewhat controlled germany and its people, lead war and industrially killed jews, homosexuals and tsiganes. And you don't know much about the FN. Same can be said about you and nazi germany, but that doesn't stop you from arguing, does it? Can you prove me that I don't know much about nazi germany ? Because your comments on FN just show how ignorant you are. Wait, did you prove now that the whole population of germany in nazitimes was criminal? Why am i supposed to bring "evidence" of your lack of knowledge (which the argument brings itself btw), but you go ahead and throw random stuff in the room? Doesn't work that way, mate. Especially not the "ignorant" thing, which describes either none or the two of us. Yeah because saying nazi germany's population was one of the most criminal necessarily means that all germans were nazi and criminal ? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project ? "Today Hitler Is All of Germany" was not written by me. To believe so would mean you believe that fundamentally, a nation of 80 million people, who were the most educated and philosophically inclined population in the world, for 12 years, easily and enthusiastically subscribed to a world view which was not only a dead end, but preposterously shallow. If you answer to an argument that talks about all the germans, then yes. If i disagree with Moltkes statement or not doesn't even matter (i do, for your information). And no. 13 millions voted NSDAP. Out of 80 millions. To state a fricking newspaper headline now to support/as evidence for your argument, lol. Here. Read. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html And 13 millions people is not a population ? It's not vast support ? lol
Do you even read what you write, honestly?
Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project?
And for that:
On November 23 2014 21:23 nunez wrote:
m4ini, stop interrupting the interesting discussion with your idiocy.
if you can't read english, be quiet, maybe you'll learn some.
one of the most.
It's a discussion that has no place in here in the first place since it's vastly off topic. Also, i don't see where "wrong" equals interesting. But take your own advice, "one of the most" has literally nothing to do with it. At all.
|
On November 23 2014 21:30 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 21:23 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:20 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:02 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:58 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:57 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:55 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:49 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:39 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
It's my aversion against germany to say that nazi were one of the most criminal. Yeah it's germanophobia to say that nazi germany is bad, but it's not francophobia to say that the FN is national socialist and facist.
You guys are awesome.
The logic was pretty simple : education and philosophy does not necessarily lead to morally good behaviors, so the fact that germany was educated is irrelevant to the flaw of nazism. Higher up and intellectuals were, too, very touched by the nazi ideology. I'm not sure who "you guys" are, i'm a single person who questioned an "argument" you made. Guess it's too much to ask for people to not act like twelve years old. Nobody disagrees that nazis were criminal. That's not what you said though. You said criminal population, not "nazis". If you like it or not, there's a huge difference, which you neglect for populistic reasons. Oh, and yeah, the FN is pretty national socialist (fascism comes with that). Yeah the nazis were just a handful sorry I should have said "the sect" that somewhat controlled germany and its people, lead war and industrially killed jews, homosexuals and tsiganes. And you don't know much about the FN. Same can be said about you and nazi germany, but that doesn't stop you from arguing, does it? Can you prove me that I don't know much about nazi germany ? Because your comments on FN just show how ignorant you are. Wait, did you prove now that the whole population of germany in nazitimes was criminal? Why am i supposed to bring "evidence" of your lack of knowledge (which the argument brings itself btw), but you go ahead and throw random stuff in the room? Doesn't work that way, mate. Especially not the "ignorant" thing, which describes either none or the two of us. Yeah because saying nazi germany's population was one of the most criminal necessarily means that all germans were nazi and criminal ? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project ? "Today Hitler Is All of Germany" was not written by me. To believe so would mean you believe that fundamentally, a nation of 80 million people, who were the most educated and philosophically inclined population in the world, for 12 years, easily and enthusiastically subscribed to a world view which was not only a dead end, but preposterously shallow. If you answer to an argument that talks about all the germans, then yes. If i disagree with Moltkes statement or not doesn't even matter (i do, for your information). And no. 13 millions voted NSDAP. Out of 80 millions. To state a fricking newspaper headline now to support/as evidence for your argument, lol. Here. Read. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html And 13 millions people is not a population ? It's not vast support ? lol Do you even read what you write, honestly? Show nested quote +Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project? And for that: Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 21:23 nunez wrote:
m4ini, stop interrupting the interesting discussion with your idiocy.
if you can't read english, be quiet, maybe you'll learn some.
one of the most. It's a discussion that has no place in here in the first place since it's vastly on topic. Also, i don't see where "wrong" equals interesting. But take your own advice, "one of the most" has literally nothing to do with it. At all.
Yeah well, the support grew after the election, even the article you link talk about that.
You really think only a minority of the german population supported the nazi regime ? I don't even consider it criminal to support hitler actually, but it's still true that there is a huge number of people that participated, directly or indirectly, to nazi's crime, and that this group can effectively be described statistically as a population.
|
On November 23 2014 21:32 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 21:30 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:23 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:20 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:02 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:58 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:57 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:55 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:49 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure who "you guys" are, i'm a single person who questioned an "argument" you made. Guess it's too much to ask for people to not act like twelve years old.
Nobody disagrees that nazis were criminal. That's not what you said though. You said criminal population, not "nazis". If you like it or not, there's a huge difference, which you neglect for populistic reasons.
Oh, and yeah, the FN is pretty national socialist (fascism comes with that). Yeah the nazis were just a handful sorry I should have said "the sect" that somewhat controlled germany and its people, lead war and industrially killed jews, homosexuals and tsiganes. And you don't know much about the FN. Same can be said about you and nazi germany, but that doesn't stop you from arguing, does it? Can you prove me that I don't know much about nazi germany ? Because your comments on FN just show how ignorant you are. Wait, did you prove now that the whole population of germany in nazitimes was criminal? Why am i supposed to bring "evidence" of your lack of knowledge (which the argument brings itself btw), but you go ahead and throw random stuff in the room? Doesn't work that way, mate. Especially not the "ignorant" thing, which describes either none or the two of us. Yeah because saying nazi germany's population was one of the most criminal necessarily means that all germans were nazi and criminal ? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project ? "Today Hitler Is All of Germany" was not written by me. To believe so would mean you believe that fundamentally, a nation of 80 million people, who were the most educated and philosophically inclined population in the world, for 12 years, easily and enthusiastically subscribed to a world view which was not only a dead end, but preposterously shallow. If you answer to an argument that talks about all the germans, then yes. If i disagree with Moltkes statement or not doesn't even matter (i do, for your information). And no. 13 millions voted NSDAP. Out of 80 millions. To state a fricking newspaper headline now to support/as evidence for your argument, lol. Here. Read. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html And 13 millions people is not a population ? It's not vast support ? lol Do you even read what you write, honestly? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project? And for that: On November 23 2014 21:23 nunez wrote:
m4ini, stop interrupting the interesting discussion with your idiocy.
if you can't read english, be quiet, maybe you'll learn some.
one of the most. It's a discussion that has no place in here in the first place since it's vastly on topic. Also, i don't see where "wrong" equals interesting. But take your own advice, "one of the most" has literally nothing to do with it. At all. Yeah well, the support grew after the election, even the article you link talk about that.
Never refuted that, and nothing inherently criminal in that, since there's quite a few people that voted NSDAP for the same reason that french vote FN (immigration etc). That's the interesting part though:
Though Hitler's anti-Semitic paranoia was not shared by the vast bulk of the population, it plainly did not weigh heavily enough in the scales on the negative side to outweigh the positive attributes that the majority saw in him.
When the open violence of Kristallnacht proved unpopular, even within Nazi circles, Hitler took care to distance himself publicly from the pogrom which he himself had commissioned. But, despite extensive disapproval of the methods, there was by now a general feeling that Jews no longer had any place in Germany, and Hitler's association of Jews with the growing international danger (which he had done more than anyone to foster) strengthened -- at least did not weaken -- his image as the fanatical defender of his nation's interests.
You could say that germans back in the day were ignorant or blind, or both - and i would've agreed as much as i disagree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence/philosophy at that time. You decided to go a populistic route, baseless. Hence this conversation.
edit:
You really think only a minority of the german population supported the nazi regime?
No. And i never said that. There's a difference between "vast majority of population" and "minority". And i say that doing so doesn't make you inherently criminal. Keep in mind that the NSDAP had legitimate points in their 25 point program too (which, coincidentally, those points are exactly the same as the FN).
|
are you sure?
i have graciously been thinking that he was a mere fool.
|
On November 23 2014 21:41 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 21:32 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:30 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:23 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:20 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:02 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:58 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:57 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:55 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Yeah the nazis were just a handful sorry I should have said "the sect" that somewhat controlled germany and its people, lead war and industrially killed jews, homosexuals and tsiganes.
And you don't know much about the FN. Same can be said about you and nazi germany, but that doesn't stop you from arguing, does it? Can you prove me that I don't know much about nazi germany ? Because your comments on FN just show how ignorant you are. Wait, did you prove now that the whole population of germany in nazitimes was criminal? Why am i supposed to bring "evidence" of your lack of knowledge (which the argument brings itself btw), but you go ahead and throw random stuff in the room? Doesn't work that way, mate. Especially not the "ignorant" thing, which describes either none or the two of us. Yeah because saying nazi germany's population was one of the most criminal necessarily means that all germans were nazi and criminal ? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project ? "Today Hitler Is All of Germany" was not written by me. To believe so would mean you believe that fundamentally, a nation of 80 million people, who were the most educated and philosophically inclined population in the world, for 12 years, easily and enthusiastically subscribed to a world view which was not only a dead end, but preposterously shallow. If you answer to an argument that talks about all the germans, then yes. If i disagree with Moltkes statement or not doesn't even matter (i do, for your information). And no. 13 millions voted NSDAP. Out of 80 millions. To state a fricking newspaper headline now to support/as evidence for your argument, lol. Here. Read. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html And 13 millions people is not a population ? It's not vast support ? lol Do you even read what you write, honestly? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project? And for that: On November 23 2014 21:23 nunez wrote:
m4ini, stop interrupting the interesting discussion with your idiocy.
if you can't read english, be quiet, maybe you'll learn some.
one of the most. It's a discussion that has no place in here in the first place since it's vastly on topic. Also, i don't see where "wrong" equals interesting. But take your own advice, "one of the most" has literally nothing to do with it. At all. Yeah well, the support grew after the election, even the article you link talk about that. Never refuted that, and nothing inherently criminal in that, since there's quite a few people that voted NSDAP for the same reason that french vote FN (immigration etc). That's the interesting part though: Show nested quote +Though Hitler's anti-Semitic paranoia was not shared by the vast bulk of the population, it plainly did not weigh heavily enough in the scales on the negative side to outweigh the positive attributes that the majority saw in him. Show nested quote +When the open violence of Kristallnacht proved unpopular, even within Nazi circles, Hitler took care to distance himself publicly from the pogrom which he himself had commissioned. But, despite extensive disapproval of the methods, there was by now a general feeling that Jews no longer had any place in Germany, and Hitler's association of Jews with the growing international danger (which he had done more than anyone to foster) strengthened -- at least did not weaken -- his image as the fanatical defender of his nation's interests. You could say that germans back in the day were ignorant or blind, or both - and i would've agreed as much as i disagree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence/philosophy at that time. You decided to go a populistic route, baseless. Hence this conversation.
I did not agree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence. I just accepted his assumption to make a point, which is that "intelligence" and "philosophy" does not necessarily lead to morally good political behavior. The two, while linked, are different.
|
On November 23 2014 09:03 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 08:33 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 08:02 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 23 2014 07:38 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 05:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 22 2014 09:03 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2014 09:00 Sub40APM wrote:On November 22 2014 08:43 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2014 08:40 Sub40APM wrote:On November 22 2014 08:37 WhiteDog wrote:
. But in the last 10 years, their core value changed and they added many ideas that directly came from the far left (before that, Le Pen presented himself as the french Reagan). They are some kind of hybrid, nationalist and somewhat communist (but not national socialist, let's not make quick assumptions, and not facists either). how is that not nationalist socialism? not the actual program carried out by that failed painter but the vague theoretical national socialism of the 20s? Because the national socialism was based on the very germanic idea of the race (altho a french built it, but with a cultural intent, see Levi strauss Race and history), that we french never really believed in. The nationalism in french is mostly a cultural nationalism that goes with intolerance towards non national cultural practice and not necessarily intolerance towards a different "blood". The national front represent a (violent) reject of the multiculturalist ideology and the valorisation of ethnical diversity, supported by both the PS and the UMP in the last decade. So just to be clear, the reason you dont want anyone calling them national socialist because you are worried that the distinction between genetic and cultural supremacy will confuse the issue? No because that's two completly different issue. There is a deeply universal project at the core of french values that is not necessarily racist (the enlightment, the declaration of the human right). That this project might lead to intolerance toward difference is another matter, but it's still a unifying project to begin with. A racist perspective on nation will always exclude, it's different. Jus soli and jus sanguini are different to me. The FN is always playing with the line, between the blood and the soil, the race and the culture, but I have never heard them really use a racist discourse - it's not the arabic populations that are unable to integrate our society to them, but it's the islamic culture, and overall the communautarism, that pose a problem in their mind. The more one thinks about the matter, the more one is unsatisfied with such an explanation because 19th century German nationalism was too, fundamentally more cultural than biological, and it was even more ethical than it was cultural. (I think a better distinction is to say that French universalism is more political, and German universalism more ethical.) When German idealists from Richard Wagner to Wilhelm Marr to Otto Weiniger spoke of "German culture", "German art", or "Jewish culture" or "Jewish art" as their categorical antitheses a century ago, they meant something more than qualities which were only incidentally characterised by certain nations. If anything, their universalism was more radical in spite of the cultural shorthands in which they garbed their thoughts. Analysing this complex thing isn't within the province of this forum, but I would recommend to anyone interested in the distinctions between French and German political thought a long-winded book by Klaus Epstein: The Genesis of German Conservatism, in which he traces where French and German political thought originally diverged in their respective receptions of the enlightenment. The other matter which obscures the issue is the modern man's sophomoric view of Nazi political ideology, and his tendency to reduce it to a kind of materialistic social darwinism. They then convert their simplifications about Nazism into generalisations about German nationalism as a whole. This is deeply problematic, all the moreso because many modern Germans are inclined to think this way as well. That's the kind of answers I'm bored with really. In Rwanda, the belgium used the number of cows and the height of people to define if they were hutu or tutsi on their id card. In nazi germany, the german discussed in length, and created protocoles, to define the % of blood needed to be considered pure or impure. France's assimilation is different, and altho I'm willing to go as far as to say that there is a cultural racism in our internationalism, saying that the declaration of the human right and our colonialism (because the two are linked) equal or even is remotly close to nazi germany is just plain stupid. But yeah, when the youth is fed on a certain discourse of the 2nd WW history's I guess nothing cannot be discussed without this constant relation and discussion on the shoah. The "objective, scientific" view of X is another facet of German intellectual history, but it is only a part of it. All kinds of foreigners, from Mme. de Stahl to Stalin, have remarked on this contradiction of German character; that mixture of inner idealism and outer conformity. Even the Nuremberg Race Laws emanated this compound of objective and subjective beliefs. Whereas the race was fubdamentally calculated on the basis grandpaternal lineage, in mixed cases there were subjective criteria such as cultural, religious and marital affiliations, which defined your "Mischling" status. Hitler himself towards the end of his life said that the biological view of race was nonsense. As a whole, Nazis were more racial idealists than racial materialists, but that is another matter. Secondly, I was not attempting to draw an equivalency between French nationalism and German nationalism. What I was expressing was a dissatisfaction with a certain formulation of those differences. The German nationalists' ideal of man was not for export in the same way as French cosmopolitan nationalism was, but the differences are not so simple as saying that one was racial and the other cultural. Yes it's not so simple, like everything historical. Of course there is a cultural aspect to german racism, but it doesn't change the fact that nationalism in germany has always gone hand in hand with a certain vision of blood, pure or impure, and the role of this blood in the definition of the nation, while France was not. The whole debate about nazism is irrelevant to what is happening in france, and that's it. Also, the cultural and the racist aspect of nazi doctrine are not two side of the same coin : the subjective part is a necessity of practice due to the incapacity of the racial concept to completly englobe all specific situations. But the culture of the aryan population was not the reason as to why the aryan were superior, but was viewed as an expression of that inherent (and natural) superiority. It's just completly different and the discussion has no reason to exist really. I have to disagree on one fundamental point: that Nazi "Aryanism" possessed no secondary causes. First of all, the neo-pagan Aryan mythology in Nazi culture was only one side of Nazi ideology. It is too much to call it "fringe", because it was promoted publicly by strong proponents within the Nazi regime, such as Himmler and Rosenberg, but it is also too much to say that this was the fundamental component of Nazi ideology. Just look at how Nazi architecture was heavily neoclassical and ignored the gothic, or how the Nazi leadership mocked their more radical comrades' attempts to fund expensive archeological surveys in an attempt to prove the superiority of proto-German culture to ancient Mediterranean civilisation. There remains after all these years the question of what "Aryan" in common Nazi parlance even meant, because they would use it with different connotations. Sometimes it means 'Germanic", but in a broader context it was an ideological placeholder for a national culture untainted by semitic influence. When Hitler for example called his Japanese allies "honorary Aryans," he was not merely saying so for sake of political expediency; he admired the way in which Japanese shinto culture reflected his own ideals.
sometimes I feel like those discrepancies are because of translations. Who translates things and how you translate them can be a huge cause of misunderstandings especially with idealogically charged stuff like what "aryan" means and I'd have to admit if I wanted to make a precise definition of something I would always prefer german, not only because I am german myself but because I feel that as a language it offers more nuances and precision then english.
In my limited understanding of the word "aryan" has always been an ideal, something that the Nazis wanted to strive for to achieve and not neccessarily something they percieved the german population to be yet. So elevating "germanness" to "aryan" comes with "cleaning" german culture of all its unwanted other cultural influences to bring out the already inherent "aryan" features in german culture. This is where I would speculate the problem arises in the bolded text and where bad translations might lead to problems.
though I would prefer to drop all this WW2 talk and get back to more recent politics
|
On November 23 2014 21:44 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 21:41 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:32 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:30 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:23 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:20 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:02 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:58 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:57 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
Same can be said about you and nazi germany, but that doesn't stop you from arguing, does it?
Can you prove me that I don't know much about nazi germany ? Because your comments on FN just show how ignorant you are. Wait, did you prove now that the whole population of germany in nazitimes was criminal? Why am i supposed to bring "evidence" of your lack of knowledge (which the argument brings itself btw), but you go ahead and throw random stuff in the room? Doesn't work that way, mate. Especially not the "ignorant" thing, which describes either none or the two of us. Yeah because saying nazi germany's population was one of the most criminal necessarily means that all germans were nazi and criminal ? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project ? "Today Hitler Is All of Germany" was not written by me. To believe so would mean you believe that fundamentally, a nation of 80 million people, who were the most educated and philosophically inclined population in the world, for 12 years, easily and enthusiastically subscribed to a world view which was not only a dead end, but preposterously shallow. If you answer to an argument that talks about all the germans, then yes. If i disagree with Moltkes statement or not doesn't even matter (i do, for your information). And no. 13 millions voted NSDAP. Out of 80 millions. To state a fricking newspaper headline now to support/as evidence for your argument, lol. Here. Read. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html And 13 millions people is not a population ? It's not vast support ? lol Do you even read what you write, honestly? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project? And for that: On November 23 2014 21:23 nunez wrote:
m4ini, stop interrupting the interesting discussion with your idiocy.
if you can't read english, be quiet, maybe you'll learn some.
one of the most. It's a discussion that has no place in here in the first place since it's vastly on topic. Also, i don't see where "wrong" equals interesting. But take your own advice, "one of the most" has literally nothing to do with it. At all. Yeah well, the support grew after the election, even the article you link talk about that. Never refuted that, and nothing inherently criminal in that, since there's quite a few people that voted NSDAP for the same reason that french vote FN (immigration etc). That's the interesting part though: Though Hitler's anti-Semitic paranoia was not shared by the vast bulk of the population, it plainly did not weigh heavily enough in the scales on the negative side to outweigh the positive attributes that the majority saw in him. When the open violence of Kristallnacht proved unpopular, even within Nazi circles, Hitler took care to distance himself publicly from the pogrom which he himself had commissioned. But, despite extensive disapproval of the methods, there was by now a general feeling that Jews no longer had any place in Germany, and Hitler's association of Jews with the growing international danger (which he had done more than anyone to foster) strengthened -- at least did not weaken -- his image as the fanatical defender of his nation's interests. You could say that germans back in the day were ignorant or blind, or both - and i would've agreed as much as i disagree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence/philosophy at that time. You decided to go a populistic route, baseless. Hence this conversation. I did not agree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence.
You misunderstood. I didn't say you did. I would have agreed if you would have said "they were ignorant/blind" rather than "criminal". I would agree with that, as much as i disagree with Moltkes assessment.
|
On November 23 2014 21:47 Skilledblob wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 09:03 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 23 2014 08:33 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 08:02 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 23 2014 07:38 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 05:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 22 2014 09:03 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2014 09:00 Sub40APM wrote:On November 22 2014 08:43 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2014 08:40 Sub40APM wrote:
[quote]
how is that not nationalist socialism? not the actual program carried out by that failed painter but the vague theoretical national socialism of the 20s? Because the national socialism was based on the very germanic idea of the race (altho a french built it, but with a cultural intent, see Levi strauss Race and history), that we french never really believed in. The nationalism in french is mostly a cultural nationalism that goes with intolerance towards non national cultural practice and not necessarily intolerance towards a different "blood". The national front represent a (violent) reject of the multiculturalist ideology and the valorisation of ethnical diversity, supported by both the PS and the UMP in the last decade. So just to be clear, the reason you dont want anyone calling them national socialist because you are worried that the distinction between genetic and cultural supremacy will confuse the issue? No because that's two completly different issue. There is a deeply universal project at the core of french values that is not necessarily racist (the enlightment, the declaration of the human right). That this project might lead to intolerance toward difference is another matter, but it's still a unifying project to begin with. A racist perspective on nation will always exclude, it's different. Jus soli and jus sanguini are different to me. The FN is always playing with the line, between the blood and the soil, the race and the culture, but I have never heard them really use a racist discourse - it's not the arabic populations that are unable to integrate our society to them, but it's the islamic culture, and overall the communautarism, that pose a problem in their mind. The more one thinks about the matter, the more one is unsatisfied with such an explanation because 19th century German nationalism was too, fundamentally more cultural than biological, and it was even more ethical than it was cultural. (I think a better distinction is to say that French universalism is more political, and German universalism more ethical.) When German idealists from Richard Wagner to Wilhelm Marr to Otto Weiniger spoke of "German culture", "German art", or "Jewish culture" or "Jewish art" as their categorical antitheses a century ago, they meant something more than qualities which were only incidentally characterised by certain nations. If anything, their universalism was more radical in spite of the cultural shorthands in which they garbed their thoughts. Analysing this complex thing isn't within the province of this forum, but I would recommend to anyone interested in the distinctions between French and German political thought a long-winded book by Klaus Epstein: The Genesis of German Conservatism, in which he traces where French and German political thought originally diverged in their respective receptions of the enlightenment. The other matter which obscures the issue is the modern man's sophomoric view of Nazi political ideology, and his tendency to reduce it to a kind of materialistic social darwinism. They then convert their simplifications about Nazism into generalisations about German nationalism as a whole. This is deeply problematic, all the moreso because many modern Germans are inclined to think this way as well. That's the kind of answers I'm bored with really. In Rwanda, the belgium used the number of cows and the height of people to define if they were hutu or tutsi on their id card. In nazi germany, the german discussed in length, and created protocoles, to define the % of blood needed to be considered pure or impure. France's assimilation is different, and altho I'm willing to go as far as to say that there is a cultural racism in our internationalism, saying that the declaration of the human right and our colonialism (because the two are linked) equal or even is remotly close to nazi germany is just plain stupid. But yeah, when the youth is fed on a certain discourse of the 2nd WW history's I guess nothing cannot be discussed without this constant relation and discussion on the shoah. The "objective, scientific" view of X is another facet of German intellectual history, but it is only a part of it. All kinds of foreigners, from Mme. de Stahl to Stalin, have remarked on this contradiction of German character; that mixture of inner idealism and outer conformity. Even the Nuremberg Race Laws emanated this compound of objective and subjective beliefs. Whereas the race was fubdamentally calculated on the basis grandpaternal lineage, in mixed cases there were subjective criteria such as cultural, religious and marital affiliations, which defined your "Mischling" status. Hitler himself towards the end of his life said that the biological view of race was nonsense. As a whole, Nazis were more racial idealists than racial materialists, but that is another matter. Secondly, I was not attempting to draw an equivalency between French nationalism and German nationalism. What I was expressing was a dissatisfaction with a certain formulation of those differences. The German nationalists' ideal of man was not for export in the same way as French cosmopolitan nationalism was, but the differences are not so simple as saying that one was racial and the other cultural. Yes it's not so simple, like everything historical. Of course there is a cultural aspect to german racism, but it doesn't change the fact that nationalism in germany has always gone hand in hand with a certain vision of blood, pure or impure, and the role of this blood in the definition of the nation, while France was not. The whole debate about nazism is irrelevant to what is happening in france, and that's it. Also, the cultural and the racist aspect of nazi doctrine are not two side of the same coin : the subjective part is a necessity of practice due to the incapacity of the racial concept to completly englobe all specific situations. But the culture of the aryan population was not the reason as to why the aryan were superior, but was viewed as an expression of that inherent (and natural) superiority. It's just completly different and the discussion has no reason to exist really. I have to disagree on one fundamental point: that Nazi "Aryanism" possessed no secondary causes. First of all, the neo-pagan Aryan mythology in Nazi culture was only one side of Nazi ideology. It is too much to call it "fringe", because it was promoted publicly by strong proponents within the Nazi regime, such as Himmler and Rosenberg, but it is also too much to say that this was the fundamental component of Nazi ideology. Just look at how Nazi architecture was heavily neoclassical and ignored the gothic, or how the Nazi leadership mocked their more radical comrades' attempts to fund expensive archeological surveys in an attempt to prove the superiority of proto-German culture to ancient Mediterranean civilisation. There remains after all these years the question of what "Aryan" in common Nazi parlance even meant, because they would use it with different connotations. Sometimes it means 'Germanic", but in a broader context it was an ideological placeholder for a national culture untainted by semitic influence. When Hitler for example called his Japanese allies "honorary Aryans," he was not merely saying so for sake of political expediency; he admired the way in which Japanese shinto culture reflected his own ideals. sometimes I feel like those discrepancies are because of translations. Who translates things and how you translate them can be a huge cause of misunderstandings especially with idealogically charged stuff like what "aryan" means and I'd have to admit if I wanted to make a precise definition of something I would always prefer german, not only because I am german myself but because I feel that as a language it offers more nuances and precision then english. In my limited understanding of the word "aryan" has always been an ideal, something that the Nazis wanted to strive for to achieve and not neccessarily something they percieved the german population to be yet. So elevating "germanness" to "aryan" comes with "cleaning" german culture of all its unwanted other cultural influences to bring out the already inherent "aryan" features in german culture. This is where I would speculate the problem arises in the bolded text and where bad translations might lead to problems.
But the etymology of the word is pretty clear : it considers the northern population as superior by nature. It is in finding back their nature, untainted from the outside and inferior populations, that the "germanness" can shine.
Meanwhile, and to go back to the subject, do you see, in the FN discourse, any discussion on vital territory / space ; on France tradition and culture as an expression of the superiority of french blood's nature ; on an ideal of purity, blood and body ; on the drag that handicap and impurety have on the society ; on the necessity of a strong leader and an end of the parlementary democracy ?
This is why I consider any relationship between tne FN and facism / national socialism, to be quite ridiculous.
|
On November 23 2014 21:47 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 21:44 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:41 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:32 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:30 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:23 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:20 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:02 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:58 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Can you prove me that I don't know much about nazi germany ? Because your comments on FN just show how ignorant you are. Wait, did you prove now that the whole population of germany in nazitimes was criminal? Why am i supposed to bring "evidence" of your lack of knowledge (which the argument brings itself btw), but you go ahead and throw random stuff in the room? Doesn't work that way, mate. Especially not the "ignorant" thing, which describes either none or the two of us. Yeah because saying nazi germany's population was one of the most criminal necessarily means that all germans were nazi and criminal ? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project ? "Today Hitler Is All of Germany" was not written by me. To believe so would mean you believe that fundamentally, a nation of 80 million people, who were the most educated and philosophically inclined population in the world, for 12 years, easily and enthusiastically subscribed to a world view which was not only a dead end, but preposterously shallow. If you answer to an argument that talks about all the germans, then yes. If i disagree with Moltkes statement or not doesn't even matter (i do, for your information). And no. 13 millions voted NSDAP. Out of 80 millions. To state a fricking newspaper headline now to support/as evidence for your argument, lol. Here. Read. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html And 13 millions people is not a population ? It's not vast support ? lol Do you even read what you write, honestly? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project? And for that: On November 23 2014 21:23 nunez wrote:
m4ini, stop interrupting the interesting discussion with your idiocy.
if you can't read english, be quiet, maybe you'll learn some.
one of the most. It's a discussion that has no place in here in the first place since it's vastly on topic. Also, i don't see where "wrong" equals interesting. But take your own advice, "one of the most" has literally nothing to do with it. At all. Yeah well, the support grew after the election, even the article you link talk about that. Never refuted that, and nothing inherently criminal in that, since there's quite a few people that voted NSDAP for the same reason that french vote FN (immigration etc). That's the interesting part though: Though Hitler's anti-Semitic paranoia was not shared by the vast bulk of the population, it plainly did not weigh heavily enough in the scales on the negative side to outweigh the positive attributes that the majority saw in him. When the open violence of Kristallnacht proved unpopular, even within Nazi circles, Hitler took care to distance himself publicly from the pogrom which he himself had commissioned. But, despite extensive disapproval of the methods, there was by now a general feeling that Jews no longer had any place in Germany, and Hitler's association of Jews with the growing international danger (which he had done more than anyone to foster) strengthened -- at least did not weaken -- his image as the fanatical defender of his nation's interests. You could say that germans back in the day were ignorant or blind, or both - and i would've agreed as much as i disagree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence/philosophy at that time. You decided to go a populistic route, baseless. Hence this conversation. I did not agree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence. You misunderstood. I didn't say you did. I would have agreed if you would have said "they were ignorant/blind" rather than "criminal". I would agree with that, as much as i disagree with Moltkes assessment.
unfortunately I would have to agree with the frenchman about a lot here (:p). same thing happened in Austria. It is arguable that people living under the third reich are outright criminal and I would argue they were not, however people knew what happened - especially those living next to camps etc. they chose to look the other way and minded their own business. but then again, it was a totalitarian regime and the risk of getting killed extremely high if you resisted, almost guaranteed if you did so openly.
|
On November 23 2014 21:57 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 21:47 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:44 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:41 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:32 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:30 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:23 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:20 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:02 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
Wait, did you prove now that the whole population of germany in nazitimes was criminal? Why am i supposed to bring "evidence" of your lack of knowledge (which the argument brings itself btw), but you go ahead and throw random stuff in the room?
Doesn't work that way, mate. Especially not the "ignorant" thing, which describes either none or the two of us. Yeah because saying nazi germany's population was one of the most criminal necessarily means that all germans were nazi and criminal ? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project ? "Today Hitler Is All of Germany" was not written by me. To believe so would mean you believe that fundamentally, a nation of 80 million people, who were the most educated and philosophically inclined population in the world, for 12 years, easily and enthusiastically subscribed to a world view which was not only a dead end, but preposterously shallow. If you answer to an argument that talks about all the germans, then yes. If i disagree with Moltkes statement or not doesn't even matter (i do, for your information). And no. 13 millions voted NSDAP. Out of 80 millions. To state a fricking newspaper headline now to support/as evidence for your argument, lol. Here. Read. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html And 13 millions people is not a population ? It's not vast support ? lol Do you even read what you write, honestly? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project? And for that: On November 23 2014 21:23 nunez wrote:
m4ini, stop interrupting the interesting discussion with your idiocy.
if you can't read english, be quiet, maybe you'll learn some.
one of the most. It's a discussion that has no place in here in the first place since it's vastly on topic. Also, i don't see where "wrong" equals interesting. But take your own advice, "one of the most" has literally nothing to do with it. At all. Yeah well, the support grew after the election, even the article you link talk about that. Never refuted that, and nothing inherently criminal in that, since there's quite a few people that voted NSDAP for the same reason that french vote FN (immigration etc). That's the interesting part though: Though Hitler's anti-Semitic paranoia was not shared by the vast bulk of the population, it plainly did not weigh heavily enough in the scales on the negative side to outweigh the positive attributes that the majority saw in him. When the open violence of Kristallnacht proved unpopular, even within Nazi circles, Hitler took care to distance himself publicly from the pogrom which he himself had commissioned. But, despite extensive disapproval of the methods, there was by now a general feeling that Jews no longer had any place in Germany, and Hitler's association of Jews with the growing international danger (which he had done more than anyone to foster) strengthened -- at least did not weaken -- his image as the fanatical defender of his nation's interests. You could say that germans back in the day were ignorant or blind, or both - and i would've agreed as much as i disagree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence/philosophy at that time. You decided to go a populistic route, baseless. Hence this conversation. I did not agree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence. You misunderstood. I didn't say you did. I would have agreed if you would have said "they were ignorant/blind" rather than "criminal". I would agree with that, as much as i disagree with Moltkes assessment. unfortunately I would have to agree with the frenchman about a lot here (:p). same thing happened in Austria. It is arguable that people living under the third reich are outright criminal and I would argue they were not, however people knew what happened - especially those living next to camps etc. they chose to look the other way and minded their own business. but then again, it was a totalitarian regime and the risk of getting killed extremely high if you resisted, almost guaranteed if you did so openly.
Let's wait for an opportunity to discuss that without vastly going off topic (again). I actually don't see where you disagree with me, at least this posting completely agrees with what i'm saying. Feel free to correct me via PM though (maybe it's easier in german to explain).
About the FN, Whitedog: let me ask you something. Do you disagree that the FN is: nationalistic, aggressive anti-immigration, and partially "anti-government"? Would you disagree that the FN is highly xenophobic, and could you explain to me who founded the FN, and what he was known for (not that it really matters, it's just that i think that it plays alot into the image).
|
all i see here are double standards and it looks like if something is just bad enough(?), it's ok to generalize everything about it.
on that note, i'd like to see someone blaming all americans for tacitly supporting every bad shit their gov/gov. institutions/corporations did; just to see how it would turn out.
|
On November 23 2014 22:07 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 21:57 Doublemint wrote:On November 23 2014 21:47 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:44 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:41 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:32 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:30 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:23 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:20 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:08 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Yeah because saying nazi germany's population was one of the most criminal necessarily means that all germans were nazi and criminal ? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project ? "Today Hitler Is All of Germany" was not written by me. To believe so would mean you believe that fundamentally, a nation of 80 million people, who were the most educated and philosophically inclined population in the world, for 12 years, easily and enthusiastically subscribed to a world view which was not only a dead end, but preposterously shallow. If you answer to an argument that talks about all the germans, then yes. If i disagree with Moltkes statement or not doesn't even matter (i do, for your information). And no. 13 millions voted NSDAP. Out of 80 millions. To state a fricking newspaper headline now to support/as evidence for your argument, lol. Here. Read. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html And 13 millions people is not a population ? It's not vast support ? lol Do you even read what you write, honestly? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project? And for that: On November 23 2014 21:23 nunez wrote:
m4ini, stop interrupting the interesting discussion with your idiocy.
if you can't read english, be quiet, maybe you'll learn some.
one of the most. It's a discussion that has no place in here in the first place since it's vastly on topic. Also, i don't see where "wrong" equals interesting. But take your own advice, "one of the most" has literally nothing to do with it. At all. Yeah well, the support grew after the election, even the article you link talk about that. Never refuted that, and nothing inherently criminal in that, since there's quite a few people that voted NSDAP for the same reason that french vote FN (immigration etc). That's the interesting part though: Though Hitler's anti-Semitic paranoia was not shared by the vast bulk of the population, it plainly did not weigh heavily enough in the scales on the negative side to outweigh the positive attributes that the majority saw in him. When the open violence of Kristallnacht proved unpopular, even within Nazi circles, Hitler took care to distance himself publicly from the pogrom which he himself had commissioned. But, despite extensive disapproval of the methods, there was by now a general feeling that Jews no longer had any place in Germany, and Hitler's association of Jews with the growing international danger (which he had done more than anyone to foster) strengthened -- at least did not weaken -- his image as the fanatical defender of his nation's interests. You could say that germans back in the day were ignorant or blind, or both - and i would've agreed as much as i disagree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence/philosophy at that time. You decided to go a populistic route, baseless. Hence this conversation. I did not agree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence. You misunderstood. I didn't say you did. I would have agreed if you would have said "they were ignorant/blind" rather than "criminal". I would agree with that, as much as i disagree with Moltkes assessment. unfortunately I would have to agree with the frenchman about a lot here (:p). same thing happened in Austria. It is arguable that people living under the third reich are outright criminal and I would argue they were not, however people knew what happened - especially those living next to camps etc. they chose to look the other way and minded their own business. but then again, it was a totalitarian regime and the risk of getting killed extremely high if you resisted, almost guaranteed if you did so openly. Let's wait for an opportunity to discuss that without vastly going off topic (again). I actually don't see where you disagree with me, at least this posting completely agrees with what i'm saying. Feel free to correct me via PM though (maybe it's easier in german to explain). About the FN, Whitedog: let me ask you something. Do you disagree that the FN is: nationalistic, aggressive anti-immigration, and partially "anti-government"? Would you disagree that the FN is highly xenophobic, and could you explain to me who founded the FN, and what he was known for (not that it really matters, it's just that i think that it plays alot into the image).
The FN is nationalist, racist and anti immigration. But not anti government. In this era where the decline of europe is in the head of everybody, they have a rethoric that consider the political class and journalists as corrupted, which is a rethoric that 99 % of the french average citizen agree with.
But again, Merkel is also a nationalist, like most if not all party in europe for obvious reasons, and many are racist too. That does not make them national socialist or facist.
I despise the FN, but this constant red hearring that the FN is like facism at the core of europe is so boring and prevent people from actually understand what is happening. But continue in doing so and thinking the core of the FN's success is their racism, and in ten or twenty years you will have people raising their arms in France just like they are doing in Greece right now.
|
On November 23 2014 22:25 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 22:07 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:57 Doublemint wrote:On November 23 2014 21:47 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:44 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:41 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:32 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:30 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:23 WhiteDog wrote:And 13 millions people is not a population ? It's not vast support ? lol Do you even read what you write, honestly? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project? And for that: On November 23 2014 21:23 nunez wrote:
m4ini, stop interrupting the interesting discussion with your idiocy.
if you can't read english, be quiet, maybe you'll learn some.
one of the most. It's a discussion that has no place in here in the first place since it's vastly on topic. Also, i don't see where "wrong" equals interesting. But take your own advice, "one of the most" has literally nothing to do with it. At all. Yeah well, the support grew after the election, even the article you link talk about that. Never refuted that, and nothing inherently criminal in that, since there's quite a few people that voted NSDAP for the same reason that french vote FN (immigration etc). That's the interesting part though: Though Hitler's anti-Semitic paranoia was not shared by the vast bulk of the population, it plainly did not weigh heavily enough in the scales on the negative side to outweigh the positive attributes that the majority saw in him. When the open violence of Kristallnacht proved unpopular, even within Nazi circles, Hitler took care to distance himself publicly from the pogrom which he himself had commissioned. But, despite extensive disapproval of the methods, there was by now a general feeling that Jews no longer had any place in Germany, and Hitler's association of Jews with the growing international danger (which he had done more than anyone to foster) strengthened -- at least did not weaken -- his image as the fanatical defender of his nation's interests. You could say that germans back in the day were ignorant or blind, or both - and i would've agreed as much as i disagree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence/philosophy at that time. You decided to go a populistic route, baseless. Hence this conversation. I did not agree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence. You misunderstood. I didn't say you did. I would have agreed if you would have said "they were ignorant/blind" rather than "criminal". I would agree with that, as much as i disagree with Moltkes assessment. unfortunately I would have to agree with the frenchman about a lot here (:p). same thing happened in Austria. It is arguable that people living under the third reich are outright criminal and I would argue they were not, however people knew what happened - especially those living next to camps etc. they chose to look the other way and minded their own business. but then again, it was a totalitarian regime and the risk of getting killed extremely high if you resisted, almost guaranteed if you did so openly. Let's wait for an opportunity to discuss that without vastly going off topic (again). I actually don't see where you disagree with me, at least this posting completely agrees with what i'm saying. Feel free to correct me via PM though (maybe it's easier in german to explain). About the FN, Whitedog: let me ask you something. Do you disagree that the FN is: nationalistic, aggressive anti-immigration, and partially "anti-government"? Would you disagree that the FN is highly xenophobic, and could you explain to me who founded the FN, and what he was known for (not that it really matters, it's just that i think that it plays alot into the image). The FN is nationalist, racist, anti immigration. But not anti government. In this era where the decline of europe is in the head of everybody, they have a rethoric that consider the political class and journalists as corrupted, which is a rethoric that 99 % of the french normal citizens agree with.
The same can be said about the FPOE in Austria. And they mainly have success because the other parties just do a poor job and it is easier to be against something everybody "feels" than argue complex topics and explain them to average joe.
|
On November 23 2014 22:25 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 22:07 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:57 Doublemint wrote:On November 23 2014 21:47 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:44 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:41 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:32 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:30 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:23 WhiteDog wrote:And 13 millions people is not a population ? It's not vast support ? lol Do you even read what you write, honestly? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project? And for that: On November 23 2014 21:23 nunez wrote:
m4ini, stop interrupting the interesting discussion with your idiocy.
if you can't read english, be quiet, maybe you'll learn some.
one of the most. It's a discussion that has no place in here in the first place since it's vastly on topic. Also, i don't see where "wrong" equals interesting. But take your own advice, "one of the most" has literally nothing to do with it. At all. Yeah well, the support grew after the election, even the article you link talk about that. Never refuted that, and nothing inherently criminal in that, since there's quite a few people that voted NSDAP for the same reason that french vote FN (immigration etc). That's the interesting part though: Though Hitler's anti-Semitic paranoia was not shared by the vast bulk of the population, it plainly did not weigh heavily enough in the scales on the negative side to outweigh the positive attributes that the majority saw in him. When the open violence of Kristallnacht proved unpopular, even within Nazi circles, Hitler took care to distance himself publicly from the pogrom which he himself had commissioned. But, despite extensive disapproval of the methods, there was by now a general feeling that Jews no longer had any place in Germany, and Hitler's association of Jews with the growing international danger (which he had done more than anyone to foster) strengthened -- at least did not weaken -- his image as the fanatical defender of his nation's interests. You could say that germans back in the day were ignorant or blind, or both - and i would've agreed as much as i disagree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence/philosophy at that time. You decided to go a populistic route, baseless. Hence this conversation. I did not agree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence. You misunderstood. I didn't say you did. I would have agreed if you would have said "they were ignorant/blind" rather than "criminal". I would agree with that, as much as i disagree with Moltkes assessment. unfortunately I would have to agree with the frenchman about a lot here (:p). same thing happened in Austria. It is arguable that people living under the third reich are outright criminal and I would argue they were not, however people knew what happened - especially those living next to camps etc. they chose to look the other way and minded their own business. but then again, it was a totalitarian regime and the risk of getting killed extremely high if you resisted, almost guaranteed if you did so openly. Let's wait for an opportunity to discuss that without vastly going off topic (again). I actually don't see where you disagree with me, at least this posting completely agrees with what i'm saying. Feel free to correct me via PM though (maybe it's easier in german to explain). About the FN, Whitedog: let me ask you something. Do you disagree that the FN is: nationalistic, aggressive anti-immigration, and partially "anti-government"? Would you disagree that the FN is highly xenophobic, and could you explain to me who founded the FN, and what he was known for (not that it really matters, it's just that i think that it plays alot into the image). The FN is nationalist, racist, anti immigration. But not anti government. In this era where the decline of europe is in the head of everybody, they have a rethoric that consider the political class and journalists as corrupted, which is a rethoric that 99 % of the french normal citizens agree with.
I wouldn't disagree necessarily either, don't worry. About the anti-gov, doesn't the FN also stand for tax cuts for small businesses, and the removal of some local/regional government? The general hostility against politicians etc is populistic at best though, considering they're exactly the same.
edit: fascism doesn't equal Nazi though. In all honesty, to me the FN is mildly fascist. They don't meet all criteria, no - but enough to be at least a milder version of fascist (maybe there's a term for it, don't know how to explain what i mean in english).
edit2: italian fascism, that is. Not german.
|
On November 23 2014 22:31 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 22:25 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 22:07 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:57 Doublemint wrote:On November 23 2014 21:47 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:44 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:41 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:32 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:30 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:23 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
And 13 millions people is not a population ? It's not vast support ?
lol Do you even read what you write, honestly? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project? And for that: On November 23 2014 21:23 nunez wrote:
m4ini, stop interrupting the interesting discussion with your idiocy.
if you can't read english, be quiet, maybe you'll learn some.
one of the most. It's a discussion that has no place in here in the first place since it's vastly on topic. Also, i don't see where "wrong" equals interesting. But take your own advice, "one of the most" has literally nothing to do with it. At all. Yeah well, the support grew after the election, even the article you link talk about that. Never refuted that, and nothing inherently criminal in that, since there's quite a few people that voted NSDAP for the same reason that french vote FN (immigration etc). That's the interesting part though: Though Hitler's anti-Semitic paranoia was not shared by the vast bulk of the population, it plainly did not weigh heavily enough in the scales on the negative side to outweigh the positive attributes that the majority saw in him. When the open violence of Kristallnacht proved unpopular, even within Nazi circles, Hitler took care to distance himself publicly from the pogrom which he himself had commissioned. But, despite extensive disapproval of the methods, there was by now a general feeling that Jews no longer had any place in Germany, and Hitler's association of Jews with the growing international danger (which he had done more than anyone to foster) strengthened -- at least did not weaken -- his image as the fanatical defender of his nation's interests. You could say that germans back in the day were ignorant or blind, or both - and i would've agreed as much as i disagree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence/philosophy at that time. You decided to go a populistic route, baseless. Hence this conversation. I did not agree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence. You misunderstood. I didn't say you did. I would have agreed if you would have said "they were ignorant/blind" rather than "criminal". I would agree with that, as much as i disagree with Moltkes assessment. unfortunately I would have to agree with the frenchman about a lot here (:p). same thing happened in Austria. It is arguable that people living under the third reich are outright criminal and I would argue they were not, however people knew what happened - especially those living next to camps etc. they chose to look the other way and minded their own business. but then again, it was a totalitarian regime and the risk of getting killed extremely high if you resisted, almost guaranteed if you did so openly. Let's wait for an opportunity to discuss that without vastly going off topic (again). I actually don't see where you disagree with me, at least this posting completely agrees with what i'm saying. Feel free to correct me via PM though (maybe it's easier in german to explain). About the FN, Whitedog: let me ask you something. Do you disagree that the FN is: nationalistic, aggressive anti-immigration, and partially "anti-government"? Would you disagree that the FN is highly xenophobic, and could you explain to me who founded the FN, and what he was known for (not that it really matters, it's just that i think that it plays alot into the image). The FN is nationalist, racist, anti immigration. But not anti government. In this era where the decline of europe is in the head of everybody, they have a rethoric that consider the political class and journalists as corrupted, which is a rethoric that 99 % of the french normal citizens agree with. I wouldn't disagree necessarily either, don't worry. About the anti-gov, doesn't the FN also stand for tax cuts for small businesses, and the removal of some local/regional government? The general hostility against politicians etc is populistic at best though, considering they're exactly the same.
Tax cuts for small businesss is also supported by half the population, we have a very high taxation of firm, compensated by a huge numer of fiscal "niche" that only big firm have access to. It's the french elitism made effective in economic policy.
About the removal of regional and local government, the current governing power (parti socialiste) is actually doing that (less region, a discussion on the end of departments, etc.) and the previous government (from the right) also did that.
|
On November 23 2014 22:29 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 22:25 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 22:07 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:57 Doublemint wrote:On November 23 2014 21:47 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:44 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:41 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:32 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:30 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:23 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
And 13 millions people is not a population ? It's not vast support ?
lol Do you even read what you write, honestly? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project? And for that: On November 23 2014 21:23 nunez wrote:
m4ini, stop interrupting the interesting discussion with your idiocy.
if you can't read english, be quiet, maybe you'll learn some.
one of the most. It's a discussion that has no place in here in the first place since it's vastly on topic. Also, i don't see where "wrong" equals interesting. But take your own advice, "one of the most" has literally nothing to do with it. At all. Yeah well, the support grew after the election, even the article you link talk about that. Never refuted that, and nothing inherently criminal in that, since there's quite a few people that voted NSDAP for the same reason that french vote FN (immigration etc). That's the interesting part though: Though Hitler's anti-Semitic paranoia was not shared by the vast bulk of the population, it plainly did not weigh heavily enough in the scales on the negative side to outweigh the positive attributes that the majority saw in him. When the open violence of Kristallnacht proved unpopular, even within Nazi circles, Hitler took care to distance himself publicly from the pogrom which he himself had commissioned. But, despite extensive disapproval of the methods, there was by now a general feeling that Jews no longer had any place in Germany, and Hitler's association of Jews with the growing international danger (which he had done more than anyone to foster) strengthened -- at least did not weaken -- his image as the fanatical defender of his nation's interests. You could say that germans back in the day were ignorant or blind, or both - and i would've agreed as much as i disagree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence/philosophy at that time. You decided to go a populistic route, baseless. Hence this conversation. I did not agree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence. You misunderstood. I didn't say you did. I would have agreed if you would have said "they were ignorant/blind" rather than "criminal". I would agree with that, as much as i disagree with Moltkes assessment. unfortunately I would have to agree with the frenchman about a lot here (:p). same thing happened in Austria. It is arguable that people living under the third reich are outright criminal and I would argue they were not, however people knew what happened - especially those living next to camps etc. they chose to look the other way and minded their own business. but then again, it was a totalitarian regime and the risk of getting killed extremely high if you resisted, almost guaranteed if you did so openly. Let's wait for an opportunity to discuss that without vastly going off topic (again). I actually don't see where you disagree with me, at least this posting completely agrees with what i'm saying. Feel free to correct me via PM though (maybe it's easier in german to explain). About the FN, Whitedog: let me ask you something. Do you disagree that the FN is: nationalistic, aggressive anti-immigration, and partially "anti-government"? Would you disagree that the FN is highly xenophobic, and could you explain to me who founded the FN, and what he was known for (not that it really matters, it's just that i think that it plays alot into the image). The FN is nationalist, racist, anti immigration. But not anti government. In this era where the decline of europe is in the head of everybody, they have a rethoric that consider the political class and journalists as corrupted, which is a rethoric that 99 % of the french normal citizens agree with. The same can be said about the FPOE in Austria. And they mainly have success because the other parties just do a poor job and it is easier to be against something everybody "feels" than argue complex topics and explain them to average joe.
Same in Switzerland and the SVP... Just that the populism here actually sometimes can win a popular vote. "Moderate" politicians are just horrible at dealing with peoples actual fears or at least respecting them/showing that they care... So these populist parties get more and more votes.
|
On November 24 2014 03:02 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 22:29 Doublemint wrote:On November 23 2014 22:25 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 22:07 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:57 Doublemint wrote:On November 23 2014 21:47 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:44 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:41 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 21:32 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:30 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
Do you even read what you write, honestly?
[quote]
And for that:
[quote]
It's a discussion that has no place in here in the first place since it's vastly on topic. Also, i don't see where "wrong" equals interesting. But take your own advice, "one of the most" has literally nothing to do with it. At all. Yeah well, the support grew after the election, even the article you link talk about that. Never refuted that, and nothing inherently criminal in that, since there's quite a few people that voted NSDAP for the same reason that french vote FN (immigration etc). That's the interesting part though: Though Hitler's anti-Semitic paranoia was not shared by the vast bulk of the population, it plainly did not weigh heavily enough in the scales on the negative side to outweigh the positive attributes that the majority saw in him. When the open violence of Kristallnacht proved unpopular, even within Nazi circles, Hitler took care to distance himself publicly from the pogrom which he himself had commissioned. But, despite extensive disapproval of the methods, there was by now a general feeling that Jews no longer had any place in Germany, and Hitler's association of Jews with the growing international danger (which he had done more than anyone to foster) strengthened -- at least did not weaken -- his image as the fanatical defender of his nation's interests. You could say that germans back in the day were ignorant or blind, or both - and i would've agreed as much as i disagree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence/philosophy at that time. You decided to go a populistic route, baseless. Hence this conversation. I did not agree with Moltkes assessment of germany being the pinnacle of intelligence. You misunderstood. I didn't say you did. I would have agreed if you would have said "they were ignorant/blind" rather than "criminal". I would agree with that, as much as i disagree with Moltkes assessment. unfortunately I would have to agree with the frenchman about a lot here (:p). same thing happened in Austria. It is arguable that people living under the third reich are outright criminal and I would argue they were not, however people knew what happened - especially those living next to camps etc. they chose to look the other way and minded their own business. but then again, it was a totalitarian regime and the risk of getting killed extremely high if you resisted, almost guaranteed if you did so openly. Let's wait for an opportunity to discuss that without vastly going off topic (again). I actually don't see where you disagree with me, at least this posting completely agrees with what i'm saying. Feel free to correct me via PM though (maybe it's easier in german to explain). About the FN, Whitedog: let me ask you something. Do you disagree that the FN is: nationalistic, aggressive anti-immigration, and partially "anti-government"? Would you disagree that the FN is highly xenophobic, and could you explain to me who founded the FN, and what he was known for (not that it really matters, it's just that i think that it plays alot into the image). The FN is nationalist, racist, anti immigration. But not anti government. In this era where the decline of europe is in the head of everybody, they have a rethoric that consider the political class and journalists as corrupted, which is a rethoric that 99 % of the french normal citizens agree with. The same can be said about the FPOE in Austria. And they mainly have success because the other parties just do a poor job and it is easier to be against something everybody "feels" than argue complex topics and explain them to average joe. Same in Switzerland and the SVP... Just that the populism here actually sometimes can win a popular vote. "Moderate" politicians are just horrible at dealing with peoples actual fears or at least respecting them/showing that they care... So these populist parties get more and more votes.
could you care explaning the situation in Switzerland ? i'm genuinely interested because i can't understand how populist parties can have a place in a country like Switzerland which is extremely rich, with a very low rate of unemployment and where, at least from the outside, the political system is flawless
btw keep the discussion guy it's really interesting
|
Whats this I hear that National Front is receiving Kremlin subsidies now?
|
any of the more knowledgeable members of TL forums know if Kokemus is going to win in Finnish Parliament elections next? Supposedly it is an 'open secret' (i.e. not a secret) that they are pretty powerful. I don't really understand Finnish politics that well & I need some background info on it, in general terms
|
On November 24 2014 05:29 Sub40APM wrote:
Whats this I hear that National Front is receiving Kremlin subsidies now?
could you add a source for that please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
