Who's ready for these retards to get the site shut down because they have to worship their one balled god openly?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (127)
sorted by:
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.
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)
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.