So why can't you guys find anything else to associate with than a disastrously failed and long defunct socialist movement from, as you say, a century ago?
Even Mussolini was inspired by something that lasted way way longer than Hitler's "1,000-year Reich" of 12 years. And even after it did crash and burn even the people who did the burning (the Germans) would come to regret it, and so they would wear the Roman skinsuit to self-identify as the "Holy Roman Empire" (aka the Reich). You're wearing a Nazi skinsuit now, but they were a failure.
Nah the Nazi stuff is more like a badge on a Nascar-style sticker suit.
I like many of the ideas, but it's not all that encompasses my thoughts nor close to the majority.
Hitler's "1,000-year Reich" of 12 years. And even after it did crash and burn
Again, that's pretty disingenuous.
The NSDAP led Germany would probably have lasted many a year longer if they didn't draw the ire of international finance.
Even had Hitler not invaded Poland war would have been inevitable.
So why can't you guys find anything else to associate with than a disastrously failed and long defunct socialist movement from, as you say, a century ago?
As said above, I can and I do.
I just always find it so fascinating how everything about Nazism must under common social contention become a discussion of how bad it was without ever really discussing WHAT it was.
In my eyes there's no negative association whatsoever. Aspersions are cast blindly without any real appeal. Muh hoilocaust pulls a nice big blanket over the whole affair.
Personally, I blame the attacks on Nazism for the fall of Nationalism as a political concept. That is why I push for it to be discussed so much. Once that taboo is broken it becomes much more likely to have Nationalism rekindled.
The NSDAP led Germany would probably have lasted many a year longer if they didn't draw the ire of international finance.
Also if it didn't go around invading its neighbors. Or even if it had stopped doing that in 1939, and probably even 1940.
Even had Hitler not invaded Poland war would have been inevitable.
That is a counterfactual that you can't prove and no one can disprove. Maybe, maybe not.
Personally, I blame the attacks on Nazism for the fall of Nationalism as a political concept. That is why I push for it to be discussed so much. Once that taboo is broken it becomes much more likely to have Nationalism rekindled.
I'm sure nationalism will be much more successful once you associate it with the Nazis.
That is a counterfactual that you can't prove and no one can disprove. Maybe, maybe not.
Considering that the war was brought about by treaties and international financial pressure, it was pretty much inevitable.
Also why did you not just reply to both points at once?
I'm sure nationalism will be much more successful once you associate it with the Nazis.
You're reading it backwards.
Nationalism is currently maligned because it made to associate with Nazism.
By removing the stigmata from Nazism it therefore strengthens the position of Nationalism and creates another platform to counterattack the Bolsheviks.
Considering that the war was brought about by treaties and international financial pressure, it was pretty much inevitable.
The last thing that international finance wanted was yet another destructive world war. Secondly, there was no treaty with Poland, just a guarantee.
So no, it was not inevitable, but I understand why it is in your interest to pretend that it was.
By removing the stigmata from Nazism it therefore strengthens the position of Nationalism and creates another platform to counterattack the Bolsheviks.
You're never removing the stigma from Nazism, and by trying to do so, you're associating what you view as your own ideology with Nazism - thus discrediting yourself.
Before Poland the international community repeatedly did everything they could to avoid the war by just giving Hitler whatever he wanted. Including letting him occupy 2 entire countries.
As for "international finance", Poland that Hitler decided to destroy at all cost was discriminating against Jews even on the small business scale, and had outlandish ideas like sending the Jews away as colonists to Madagascar after aquiring it as an overseas colony (much more realistically, Poland was covertly helping the right-wing Zionists to achieve independence for Palestine from Britain so the Jews would go there - which was also the original Nazi plan before "the resettlement to the east").
Jews themselves as Zionists were seeking emigration from Germany and the NatSocs were pleased to help them go. See book link below.
Not that the willingness of jews to be emigrated should be considered a factor in assessing the operation anyway, since surely Germany had as much right to carry out enforced ethnic cleansing as any other country.
After all, wasn't enforced ethnic cleansing the official policy and approach of the countries that imposed the Treaty of Versailles? That is - everywhere except where German national self-determination was concerned. Otherwise, why was Germany butchered by having vast portions of her land, with 95% ethnic Geman populations, cut off and handed over to ethnically hostile peoples as hostages to what turned out to be a very cruel fortune? And of course, they were ethnically cleansed from those areas in the most brutal and genocidal ways.
But then, perhaps ethnic cleansing was really okay. History does give us mixed signals on that topic.
For a good example of how the morally impeccable League of Nations viewed ethnic cleansing, see its support for the Greece-Turkey "populaton exchange" of 1923. The League of Nations High Commissioner who oversaw that sword-and-fire-enforced mass population movement had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize just the year before.
This major compulsory population exchange, or agreed mutual expulsion, was based not on language or ethnicity, but upon religious identity,
So we have to ask, is ethnic cleansing acceptable or not? Or is it just not aceptable when it is done to jews or by Germans? Or is it okay when it is done by jews to Palestinians? Or by the international jew to Germans?
Please clear this up for me. I really do feel that I am caught in a terrible moral dilemma.
For your reading pleasure and, I am sure, also your edification:
Current historical writings dealing with matters related to the Third Reich paint a bleak picture. This applies especially to writings that deal with the Jewish ethnic group.
To this day there are still accounts of the Jewish emigration that depict it as some kind of clandestine operation ?- as if the Jews who wished to leave Germany had to sneak over the borders in defiance of the German authorities, leaving all their possessions and wealth behind.
The truth is that the emigration was welcomed by the German authorities, and frequently occurred under a constantly increasing pressure. Emigration was not some kind of wild flight, but rather a lawfully determined and regulated matter. Weckert's booklet elucidates the emigration process in law and policy, thereby augmenting the traditionally received picture of Jewish emigration from Germany.
German and Jewish authorities worked closely together on this emigration. Jews interested in emigrating received detailed advice and offers of help from both sides. The accounts of Jews fleeing Germany in secret by night across some border are untenable. On the contrary, the German government was interested in getting rid of its Jews. It would have been senseless to prevent such an emigration.
After all, wasn't enforced ethnic cleansing the official policy and approach of the countries that imposed the Treaty of Versailles? That is - everywhere except where German national self-determination was concerned. Otherwise, why was Germany butchered by having vast portions of her land, with 95% ethnic Geman populations, cut off and handed over to ethnically hostile peoples as hostages to what turned out to be a very cruel fortune? And of course, they were ethnically cleansed from those areas in the most brutal and genocidal ways.
Source: German descent in Poland, the fuck you even talk about lmao
(Nothing even remotely like "95%" too, unless you mean some odd small village or whatever)
So why can't you guys find anything else to associate with than a disastrously failed and long defunct socialist movement from, as you say, a century ago?
Even Mussolini was inspired by something that lasted way way longer than Hitler's "1,000-year Reich" of 12 years. And even after it did crash and burn even the people who did the burning (the Germans) would come to regret it, and so they would wear the Roman skinsuit to self-identify as the "Holy Roman Empire" (aka the Reich). You're wearing a Nazi skinsuit now, but they were a failure.
Nah the Nazi stuff is more like a badge on a Nascar-style sticker suit.
I like many of the ideas, but it's not all that encompasses my thoughts nor close to the majority.
Again, that's pretty disingenuous.
The NSDAP led Germany would probably have lasted many a year longer if they didn't draw the ire of international finance.
Even had Hitler not invaded Poland war would have been inevitable.
As said above, I can and I do.
I just always find it so fascinating how everything about Nazism must under common social contention become a discussion of how bad it was without ever really discussing WHAT it was.
In my eyes there's no negative association whatsoever. Aspersions are cast blindly without any real appeal. Muh hoilocaust pulls a nice big blanket over the whole affair.
Personally, I blame the attacks on Nazism for the fall of Nationalism as a political concept. That is why I push for it to be discussed so much. Once that taboo is broken it becomes much more likely to have Nationalism rekindled.
Also if it didn't go around invading its neighbors. Or even if it had stopped doing that in 1939, and probably even 1940.
That is a counterfactual that you can't prove and no one can disprove. Maybe, maybe not.
I'm sure nationalism will be much more successful once you associate it with the Nazis.
Considering that the war was brought about by treaties and international financial pressure, it was pretty much inevitable.
Also why did you not just reply to both points at once?
You're reading it backwards.
Nationalism is currently maligned because it made to associate with Nazism.
By removing the stigmata from Nazism it therefore strengthens the position of Nationalism and creates another platform to counterattack the Bolsheviks.
The last thing that international finance wanted was yet another destructive world war. Secondly, there was no treaty with Poland, just a guarantee.
So no, it was not inevitable, but I understand why it is in your interest to pretend that it was.
You're never removing the stigma from Nazism, and by trying to do so, you're associating what you view as your own ideology with Nazism - thus discrediting yourself.
Germany had a perfect right to take back the lands and the German population that was taken from her under the egregious Treay of Versailles.
She also had a perfect right and indeed an obligation to defend herself against bolshevism, internally and externally.
Like Bohemia?
Funny how the Hitler fanboys never say a thing about the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
lol, she 'defended herself' by bringing the Bolsheviks to Berlin.
Before Poland the international community repeatedly did everything they could to avoid the war by just giving Hitler whatever he wanted. Including letting him occupy 2 entire countries.
As for "international finance", Poland that Hitler decided to destroy at all cost was discriminating against Jews even on the small business scale, and had outlandish ideas like sending the Jews away as colonists to Madagascar after aquiring it as an overseas colony (much more realistically, Poland was covertly helping the right-wing Zionists to achieve independence for Palestine from Britain so the Jews would go there - which was also the original Nazi plan before "the resettlement to the east").
Yet for some reason they decvalred wa on Germany but not on the Soviet Unnion which invaded Poland two weeks later.
"Some reason" was the allied pressure.
Jews themselves as Zionists were seeking emigration from Germany and the NatSocs were pleased to help them go. See book link below.
Not that the willingness of jews to be emigrated should be considered a factor in assessing the operation anyway, since surely Germany had as much right to carry out enforced ethnic cleansing as any other country.
After all, wasn't enforced ethnic cleansing the official policy and approach of the countries that imposed the Treaty of Versailles? That is - everywhere except where German national self-determination was concerned. Otherwise, why was Germany butchered by having vast portions of her land, with 95% ethnic Geman populations, cut off and handed over to ethnically hostile peoples as hostages to what turned out to be a very cruel fortune? And of course, they were ethnically cleansed from those areas in the most brutal and genocidal ways.
But then, perhaps ethnic cleansing was really okay. History does give us mixed signals on that topic.
For a good example of how the morally impeccable League of Nations viewed ethnic cleansing, see its support for the Greece-Turkey "populaton exchange" of 1923. The League of Nations High Commissioner who oversaw that sword-and-fire-enforced mass population movement had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize just the year before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey
So we have to ask, is ethnic cleansing acceptable or not? Or is it just not aceptable when it is done to jews or by Germans? Or is it okay when it is done by jews to Palestinians? Or by the international jew to Germans?
Please clear this up for me. I really do feel that I am caught in a terrible moral dilemma.
For your reading pleasure and, I am sure, also your edification:
"Jewish Emigration from the Third Reich"
Ingrid Weckert
https://en.book4you.org/book/1093787/f574a4
Source: German descent in Poland, the fuck you even talk about lmao
(Nothing even remotely like "95%" too, unless you mean some odd small village or whatever)