NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.badmash.org/comics/73.gif

This raises and important issues. Swastikas have been used by the Hindu's for thousands of thousands of years, yet now everyone thinks that they should be banned because some quack Austrian decided to make it his symbol.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/18/Swastika.jpg
(A typical Hindu Swastika)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Swastika_flag_%28Nazi_Germany%29.ant.png
(A nazi swastika)

But there are other religious symbols that are used by quacks too. For example, the Cross. The KKK uses crosses and burns them in front of houses, but does anyone say "lets ban crosses"? No! So people fell fine banning something that has been around for many more times than the cross because it comes from India, but if something christian is used evily it can't be banned? That's just wrong

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Christian_cross.png
(A typical christian cross)

http://www.digischool.nl/kleioscoop/kkk.jpg
(KKK cross burning).

(the hindu swastika doesn't show up, TLS...)

(the hindu swastika doesn't show up, TLS...)

*CRAP!*

(the hindu swastika doesn't show up, TLS...)

It does for me ..

The 45th Infantry Division, US ARMY National Guard used the Swastika up until 1939 or 1940 as their shoulder patch. It was changed to a stylized "thunderbird."

The Swastika had a meaning before WWII. It has a different meaning now. Time, and events, changes things.

(the hindu swastika doesn't show up, TLS...)
It did for me.
And lightning star, you make a good point. the subtle differences in the two are enough to distinguish them, so why not outlaw the nazi one only?

That Hindu Swastika doesn't even remind me of the Nazi Swatika.

does to me, did you fix it?

(ah good, it shows up now.)

I get your point, but it's only slighlty different then the Hammer and Sickle or Burning Cross.

Then again i think the Burning Cross should also be banned, any group that promotes Genocide should have their symbol removed.

After all Communism did not commit Genocides...they commited mass murders, but not Genocides and such.

The problem with the KKK cross burning example is that people generally don't associate crosses with the KKK. To the average guy in the street, if you ask them what they associate with a cross, they'd most likely say Christianity. If you ask the same guy what he associates a swastika with, he's going to say Nazism, or Hitler - something along those lines.

I say that we just ban the cross and the letter T since it looks like a cross.

Well if we can clearly establish how to identify the Nazi Swastika to the Hindu Swastika, maybe NS can update it?

Plus KKK doesn't have a symbol... do they? If they do we should ban it. ;)

Isn't these threads 'illegal' or something? :confused:

The swastika cant be banned in america because it is a religious symbol and can be used for expression. Besides alot of people had swastika things in the 1920s because it was the "in" then.

Well if we can clearly establish how to identify the Nazi Swastika to the Hindu Swastika, maybe NS can update it?

Plus KKK doesn't have a symbol... do they? If they do we should ban it. ;)
Argument has been made in the past, yet we're still here with it still banned.

isnt there a blue swasika that was finnish representing peace?

Isn't these threads 'illegal' or something? :confused:

They shouldn't be.

Unless NS is one of those groups that supports denying the rights of Hindus to show their religous symbols.. Which would be bad.

Isn't these threads 'illegal' or something? :confused:
If we're talking about on legalizing swastikas on NS, then yes, they were ruled illegal if I remember correctly.

The problem with the KKK cross burning example is that people generally don't associate crosses with the KKK. To the average guy in the street, if you ask them what they associate with a cross, they'd most likely say Christianity. If you ask the same guy what he associates a swastika with, he's going to say Nazism, or Hitler - something along those lines.

But when you ask people what they associate with the KKK they say "pointy hat's and burning crosses". And if you ask an asian "what do you associate the swastika with?" they'll say "Buddhism, Hinduism, and alot of our religions."

It all depends what question you ask, and who you ask.

Yeah, ban all crosses! Not just burning ones, all of them.

No, in all seriousness, I don't think it should be banned. What about when the swastika is used as a symbol of fascism by anti fascists?

I get your point, but it's only slighlty different then the Hammer and Sickle or Burning Cross.

Then again i think the Burning Cross should also be banned, any group that promotes Genocide should have their symbol removed.

After all Communism did not commit Genocides...they commited mass murders, but not Genocides and such.

So 20 million Russians isnt genoicde? The fact that Ukrainians, Georgians and some of the other small nationalities of the Soviet Union were specifically targeted and persecuted? The fact that many of thsoe 20 million belonged solely to the peasant class? The fact that after World War Two Stalin began to specifically target Jews and only was stopped by his death?

In my opinion that is multiple genocide - it is picking on nationality, religion and social-economic class. The communists have committed the worst genocides on this earth - the only difference between them and the Nazis is that the Soviets were so badly disorangised and so poor that they couldn't launch their socialist spreading campaign before the Germans launched their attempt at world domination. The Hammer and Sickle should be just as hated an object as the Nazi swastika.

If we're talking about on legalizing swastikas on NS, then yes, they were ruled illegal if I remember correctly.

I'm not talking ab00t legalizing swastikas on NS. I'm talking about how western society seems to think that it is better than Asian Religion, thus meaning that the west should ban something that is over 4000 years old because some wacko 70 years ago used it on his flag.

Isn't these threads 'illegal' or something? :confused:

Swastikas as nation flags have been outlawed, but I believe that we are allowed to post them in threads as long as they are relevant to the topic.

So 20 million Russians isnt genoicde? The fact that Ukrainians, Georgians and some of the other small nationalities of the Soviet Union were specifically targeted and persecuted? The fact that many of thsoe 20 million belonged solely to the peasant class? The fact that after World War Two Stalin began to specifically target Jews and only was stopped by his death?

In my opinion that is multiple genocide - it is picking on nationality, religion and social-economic class. The communists have committed the worst genocides on this earth - the only difference between them and the Nazis is that the Soviets were so badly disorangised and so poor that they couldn't launch their socialist spreading campaign before the Germans launched their own attempt at world domination. The Hammer and Sickle should be just as hated an object as the Nazi swastika.

No, the Soviet Union did that. Communism is an ideaology.Nazi Germany was a state.

Isn't these threads 'illegal' or something? :confused:
trying to make swastikas "legal" for flags and stuff here is against the rules, but i dont know if just discussing their reputation in general is

But when you ask people what they associate with the KKK they say "pointy hat's and burning crosses". And if you ask an asian "what do you associate the swastika with?" they'll say "Buddhism, Hinduism, and alot of our religions."

It all depends what question you ask, and who you ask.
Ok, fair point. When I think of the KKK, I think of the pointy hats, yes, and white supremacy. I don't automatically think of burning crosses. And, as a westerner, I associate the swastika with Nazism. But yes, I can see that asians wouldn't necessarily associate the swastika with Nazism.

Swastikas as nation flags have been outlawed, but I believe that we are allowed to post them in threads as long as they are relevant to the topic.


Ok!

Is the x-files thing correct?
Swastikas were originally meant for protection against demons?

So 20 million Russians isnt genoicde? The fact that Ukrainians, Georgians and some of the other small nationalities of the Soviet Union were specifically targeted and persecuted? The fact that many of thsoe 20 million belonged solely to the peasant class? The fact that after World War Two Stalin began to specifically target Jews and only was stopped by his death?

In my opinion that is multiple genocide - it is picking on nationality, religion and social-economic class. The communists have committed the worst genocides on this earth - the only difference between them and the Nazis is that the Soviets were so badly disorangised and so poor that they couldn't launch their socialist spreading campaign before the Germans launched their attempt at world domination. The Hammer and Sickle should be just as hated an object as the Nazi swastika.

You are forgetting one thing though. The power of the damnable media. Most people dont know about america's genocide. Anyway the russian genocide was done by a russian. The hammer and sickle represented the working class made by lenin who said to never let stalin in charge but did the russians listen to that communist (really leninist) no they let the stalinist in.

So 20 million Russians isnt genoicde? The fact that Ukrainians, Georgians and some of the other small nationalities of the Soviet Union were specifically targeted and persecuted? The fact that many of thsoe 20 million belonged solely to the peasant class? The fact that after World War Two Stalin began to specifically target Jews and only was stopped by his death?

In my opinion that is multiple genocide - it is picking on nationality, religion and social-economic class. The communists have committed the worst genocides on this earth - the only difference between them and the Nazis is that the Soviets were so badly disorangised and so poor that they couldn't launch their socialist spreading campaign before the Germans launched their attempt at world domination. The Hammer and Sickle should be just as hated an object as the Nazi swastika.


1. If Stalin wanted to destroy all the Georgians or any minority for that matter..he could, easily, he didn't.

2. Stalin gave the Jew's they own province...i don't think he hated them that much.

No, the Soviet Union did that. Communism is an ideaology.Nazi Germany was a state.

The Soviet Union practised Communism and therefore we can assume that they are one and the same. After all, the Soviets did everything in the name of communism, in an attempt to achieve communism.

And this isnt a seperate case either. Other Communist preaching states launch their terrors on millions and millions - consider that of the Chinese or the one that the North Korean government still continues to execute. Communism is as much to blame for those deaths as the Soviets were.

Swastikas are only banned as flags, they are allowed on the forums as they can be debated.

As for the hammer and sickle - the hammer and sickle stands for international socialism. It does NOT stand for Stalin.

The Soviet Union practised Communism and therefore we can assume that they are one and the same. After all, the Soviets did everything in the name of communism, in an attempt to achieve communism.

And this isnt a seperate case either. Other Communist preaching states launch their terrors on millions and millions - consider that of the Chinese or the one that the North Korean government still continues to execute. Communism is as much to blame for those deaths as the Soviets were.

Soviet unioin was leninist then stalinist. Never assume. Assumptions kill. I make inferences

1. If Stalin wanted to destroy all the Georgians or any minority for that matter..he could, easily, he didn't.

2. Stalin gave the Jew's they own province...i don't think he hated them that much.

Uh, he gave them their own province so he could get them as far away from Moscow as possible. Anti-semitism was baisically Soviet doctrine back then(it seems taht the Jews are the perfect scape-goat :().

1. If Stalin wanted to destroy all the Georgians or any minority for that matter..he could, easily, he didn't.

Interesting you bring up Georgia (Stalin's home province), apparently he is seen as a hero their. Not sure how accurate this is. I read it in the paper, but I still consider it hear say.

2. Stalin gave the Jew's they own province...i don't think he hated them that much.

He did hate them. Just not enough to kill them. He wanted to take them away from the everyone else, and iirc expected them to starve to death.

The swasticka actually used to be the most widely used symbol in the world. They used to use it all the time in the U.S. as it was considered a good luck charm.

Swastikas are only banned as flags, they are allowed on the forums as they can be debated.

As for the hammer and sickle - the hammer and sickle stands for international socialism. It does NOT stand for Stalin.

To me they are one and the same. You socialists cant run around forever proclaiming that socialism has nothing to do with Stalinism in the same way facists cant say that facism has nothing to do with Nazism. The fact of the matter is that Stalin did everything in the name of Socialism, he did everything by his (and Lenin's) interpretation of Marxism. All of the Politburo were Marxists (except Beria who could have destroyed that revolting state had they left him in power long enough).

Lets face facts: Marxism and socialism can only be put into practice in one way: through death, destruction, terror and chaos. Thats why every socialist state that follows the Marxist model edns up like Russia: a deaded husk so filled with death that the state itself dies leaving only bitterness and poverty in its wake.

But what of China? I hear you clamour. Well China is capitalism masquerading as socialism: it can only be a matter of years before the socialist guise is shed and then the only success that socialism ever achieved can be stripped away from you.

why must everyone repeat me. Like the good luck guy and the hammer and sickle guy

So 20 million Russians isnt genoicde? The fact that Ukrainians, Georgians and some of the other small nationalities of the Soviet Union were specifically targeted and persecuted? The fact that many of thsoe 20 million belonged solely to the peasant class? The fact that after World War Two Stalin began to specifically target Jews and only was stopped by his death?

In my opinion that is multiple genocide - it is picking on nationality, religion and social-economic class. The communists have committed the worst genocides on this earth - the only difference between them and the Nazis is that the Soviets were so badly disorangised and so poor that they couldn't launch their socialist spreading campaign before the Germans launched their attempt at world domination. The Hammer and Sickle should be just as hated an object as the Nazi swastika.

It is a complete exaggeration to say that Stalin was reponsible for 20 million deaths and more accurate figures estimate it was between 1 and 5 million. It is a fact that the population growth rate in the USSR while Stalin was in power exceeded that in western European countries over the same period (despite the death of 22 million Russians in WW2) so it is impossible for 20 million people to have been deliberately killed by Stalin. I don't deny that Stalin was an evil person who killed many innocent people, including loyal communists, but a figure like 20 million is absurd and is a complete invention by fascists and the western governments in whose interest it is to harm the reputation of the Soviet Union.

There is also a great difference between the nazi swastika and the communist hammer and sickle. This is because the swastika represents and ideology which is completely based on hate and which directly leads to genocide. The hammer and sickle represents an ideology based on human rights, equality, democracy and an end to all forms of exploitation and there is nowhere in the Communist Manifesto that justifies mass murder. Many communists like myself believe that Stalin was not even a communist and I believe stalinism is much closer to fascism than socialism or marxism.

To me they are one and the same. You socialists cant run around forever proclaiming that socialism has nothing to do with Stalinism in the same way facists cant say that facism has nothing to do with Nazism. The fact of the matter is that Stalin did everything in the name of Socialism, he did everything by his (and Lenin's) interpretation of Marxism. All of the Politburo were Marxists (except Beria who could have destroyed that revolting state had they left him in power long enough).
*sigh*
Well, on top of the fact that fascism isn't Nazism as you seem to claim in the first sentence...

Let's put it this way. Christianity caused the Crusades. Many were killed in those. Should the sign of the Cross be banned?

To me they are one and the same. You socialists cant run around forever proclaiming that socialism has nothing to do with Stalinism in the same way facists cant say that facism has nothing to do with Nazism. The fact of the matter is that Stalin did everything in the name of Socialism, he did everything by his (and Lenin's) interpretation of Marxism. All of the Politburo were Marxists (except Beria who could have destroyed that revolting state had they left him in power long enough).

Lets face facts: Marxism and socialism can only be put into practice in one way: through death, destruction, terror and chaos. Thats why every socialist state that follows the Marxist model edns up like Russia: a deaded husk so filled with death that the state itself dies leaving only bitterness and poverty in its wake.

But what of China? I hear you clamour. Well China is capitalism masquerading as socialism: it can only be a matter of years before the socialist guise is shed and then the only success that socialism ever achieved can be stripped away from you.

And the Catholic church slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the crusades. Does this mean the crucifix should be seen as a symbol standing for mass murder, because clearly everyone displaying it nowadays supports holy war against Islam. :rolleyes:

In my mind there is one easy way to tell the difference between socialism and capitalism.

In socialist countires they don't admitt poverty exists because povery can never exist under a socialist state. So everyone from the private indidivual to the state ignores it.

In capitalist countries poverty is aknowledged which gives the chance for individuals to try and change that either through charity or through refrom of the law.

So its essentially a choice between knowledge and ignorance.

And the Catholic church slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the crusades. Does this mean the crucifix should be seen as a symbol standing for mass murder, because clearly everyone displaying it nowadays supports holy war against Islam. :rolleyes:
Great minds think alike, comrade!
We both used the same example!
:p

To me they are one and the same. You socialists cant run around forever proclaiming that socialism has nothing to do with Stalinism in the same way facists cant say that facism has nothing to do with Nazism. The fact of the matter is that Stalin did everything in the name of Socialism, he did everything by his (and Lenin's) interpretation of Marxism. All of the Politburo were Marxists (except Beria who could have destroyed that revolting state had they left him in power long enough).

Lets face facts: Marxism and socialism can only be put into practice in one way: through death, destruction, terror and chaos. Thats why every socialist state that follows the Marxist model edns up like Russia: a deaded husk so filled with death that the state itself dies leaving only bitterness and poverty in its wake.

But what of China? I hear you clamour. Well China is capitalism masquerading as socialism: it can only be a matter of years before the socialist guise is shed and then the only success that socialism ever achieved can be stripped away from you.

Yay New British Glory!

In my mind there is only one fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism.

In socialist countires they don't admitt poverty exists because povery can never exist under a socialist state. So everyone from the private indidivual to the state ignores it.

In capitalist countries poverty is aknowledged which gives the chance for individuals to try and change that either through charity or through refrom of the law.
Then you clearly know the definitions of neither socialism nor capitalism.

And the Catholic church slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the crusades. Does this mean the crucifix should be seen as a symbol standing for mass murder, because clearly everyone displaying it nowadays supports holy war against Islam. :rolleyes:

Uh yeah.

In fact, the only symbol I can think of that hasn't lead to genocide or mass-violence is the CNN sign.

All hail CNN!

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.1/logo/logo.gif

In capitalist countries poverty is aknowledged which gives the chance for individuals to try and change that either through charity or through refrom of the law.

So its essentially a choice between knowledge and ignorance.

Or rather, in Capitalist states, poverty can easily be ignored because their voices simply are not heard. Socialism is about giving everyone an equal opportunity in life.

Uh yeah.

In fact, the only symbol I can think of that hasn't lead to genocide or mass-violence is the CNN sign.

All hail CNN!

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.1/logo/logo.gif
But just last week, I killed 5 men in the name of CNN!
Let's ban the CNN symbol too now!
:D

And the Catholic church slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the crusades. Does this mean the crucifix should be seen as a symbol standing for mass murder, because clearly everyone displaying it nowadays supports holy war against Islam. :rolleyes:

The muslims caused the crusades by attacking constaninople which asked for help. They later returned capturing it. The rest was trying to recapture the holy land which was lost due to the fall of constaninople.

It is a complete exaggeration to say that Stalin was reponsible for 20 million deaths and more accurate figures estimate it was between 1 and 5 million. It is a fact that the population growth rate in the USSR while Stalin was in power exceeded that in western European countries over the same period (despite the death of 22 million Russians in WW2) so it is impossible for 20 million people to have been deliberately killed by Stalin. I don't deny that Stalin was an evil person who killed many innocent people, including loyal communists, but a figure like 20 million is absurd and is a complete invention by fascists and the western governments in whose interest it is to harm the reputation of the Soviet Union.

There is also a great difference between the nazi swastika and the communist hammer and sickle. This is because the swastika represents and ideology which is completely based on hate and which directly leads to genocide. The hammer and sickle represents an ideology based on human rights, equality, democracy and an end to all forms of exploitation and there is nowhere in the Communist Manifesto that justifies mass murder. Many communists like myself believe that Stalin was not even a communist and I believe stalinism is much closer to fascism than socialism or marxism.

Really? Several well known and published historians seem to disagree with you on the fact of 20 million Russians - I took that figure from Simon Sebag Montiefores Court of the Red Tsar, the most recent work on Stalin that used the most recently released Kremlin records. Montiefore is a renounded historian of Russia who has lived there for a large amount of time - I would trust his comment greatly.

And why is it that democracy never occurs in socialist states? Why is it they always degenrate into murder and terror? Its because it is built into the very doctrine of Marxism.

That Hindu Swastika doesn't even remind me of the Nazi Swatika.
Same here

But just last week, I killed 5 men in the name of CNN!
Let's ban the CNN symbol too now!
:D

Damn you!

Is nothing sacred!?!

Socialism is about giving everyone an equal opportunity in life.

...unless they believe in capitalism of course

...unless they believe in capitalism of course
Hooray for stereotyping and generalizations!

No, i'm pretty sure that the central tenets of socialism do not include mistreating those that believe otherwise.

And the Catholic church slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the crusades. Does this mean the crucifix should be seen as a symbol standing for mass murder, because clearly everyone displaying it nowadays supports holy war against Islam. :rolleyes:

I'm not a Christian (or religious in anyway) and see no problem in having the cruxific removed from public offices and having public displays of it banned. However I have no wish to because I am not a politically correct zealot. I merely wished to point out that many people (I for one) find the Hammer and Sickle just as bowel churning as the Nazi Swatiska.

In France they have banned overt cruxifices froms school (as well as skull caps and Muslim headdress) and I say why not?

Really? Several well known and published historians seem to disagree with you on the fact of 20 million Russians - I took that figure from Simon Sebag Montiefores Court of the Red Tsar, the most recent work on Stalin that used the most recently released Kremlin records. Montiefore is a renounded historian of Russia who has lived there for a large amount of time - I would trust his comment greatly.

It depends how much you can attribute to being a direct, willful murder by Stalin. Such reports are heavily biased and include everyone that died in various famines and wars that took place during Stalin's time as chairman.

And why is it that democracy never occurs in socialist states? Why is it they always degenrate into murder and terror? Its because it is built into the very doctrine of Marxism.

Because the countries in which Socialism has so far emerged have always emerged from the grip of another dictator. When people have been oppressed for such a long time and are unacustomed to democratic ideals, the country becomes far more susceptable to more dictators. In the case of the USSR, Lenin had been liberalising the nation in the later years of his time as Chairman, but unfortunately his death allowed Stalin to rise to power and set up his regime.
The principles of Socialism are not at fault, just those who use it as an in-road to despotism.

In my mind there is one easy way to tell the difference between socialism and capitalism.

In socialist countires they don't admitt poverty exists because povery can never exist under a socialist state. So everyone from the private indidivual to the state ignores it.

In capitalist countries poverty is aknowledged which gives the chance for individuals to try and change that either through charity or through refrom of the law.

So its essentially a choice between knowledge and ignorance.


Socialism is trying to change the laws and using the existing system to redistribute the wealth. Marx and Angles (if spelt right) stated that that was a thing that would never happen.

Communism is a quick violent over through that would lead to several years of the proliterate(again spelling might be off) of a rain of terror or something until the communism can fully take place. In communism the government owns the buisness and forces a person to take a job they are most able to do (like me i would be a tactician or weapons designer) and you get paid as much as you need for neccisity.

Capitalism in the purest form is let the people rule their own buisness and an invisible hand would make the market work.

Hooray for stereotyping and generalizations!

No, i'm pretty sure that the central tenets of socialism do not include mistreating those that believe otherwise.

But how can a socialist society perpetuate itself if people are unwilling to share with the community?

Socialism= Sounds good, but is really not so good.

Capitalism=Corrupt, although if you are good enough you can become rich.

Communism= Sounds great on paper, impossible to put into practice(all attempts descend into maniacle, genocidal dictatorships).

These all suck. But I have my own system!

Jonism!(my name is Jon, BTW)

The Great Leader Jon(myself), makes all of the decision for the state. The Great Leader Jon leads the Armed Forces, makes all foreign policy decisions, set's tax rates etc.

To keep the liberals happy, however, it still includes the Free Market system. But this is Free Market with a twist. In this Free Market, everything on the market is free to Jon.

The muslims caused the crusades by attacking constaninople which asked for help. They later returned capturing it. The rest was trying to recapture the holy land which was lost due to the fall of constaninople.
Actually, i believe a few swiss, might have been someone else though, were all that answered Constantinople's call for help, but it was one of several events that led to the crusades, the last straw being the burning of the Church of the Sepulchre by an Egyptian caliph years later, not unlike the Spanish-American war, a series of events culminating in the Maine incident/accident (never truly been proven to be Spain's fault)

In France they have banned overt cruxifices froms school (as well as skull caps and Muslim headdress) and I say why not?
For one thing, Jews are required to wear skull caps, not just to show their religion, but because you have to cover your head when in God's presence, and God is allegedly everywhere. It's not an option. It's a choice between state law and religious law, and an Orthodox Jew would be forced to go to private school.
For Muslims, I don't know.

Socialism is trying to change the laws and using the existing system to redistribute the wealth. Marx and Angles (if spelt right) stated that that was a thing that would never happen.

Communism is a quick violent over through that would lead to several years of the proliterate(again spelling might be off) of a rain of terror or something until the communism can fully take place. In communism the government owns the buisness and forces a person to take a job they are most able to do (like me i would be a tactician or weapons designer) and you get paid as much as you need for neccisity.

Capitalism in the purest form is let the people rule their own buisness and an invisible hand would make the market work.

Not at all. Marx and Engels view of the socialist revolution is where the workers overthrow the Bourgeousie and set up the Dictatorship of the Proletariat - literally the Government of the People. People often misconstrue this as meaning a dictatorship in the sense that Francisco Franco led a Dictatorship. Dictatorship in this sense just meant the workers were the ones in power. The ideal set out in the Manifesto is that eventually, the state would wither away as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat transitions the country to a true communist nation, where there is no government.

Note: I am not a Communist, I'm a Democratic Socialist.

Really? Several well known and published historians seem to disagree with you on the fact of 20 million Russians - I took that figure from Simon Sebag Montiefores Court of the Red Tsar, the most recent work on Stalin that used the most recently released Kremlin records. Montiefore is a renounded historian of Russia who has lived there for a large amount of time - I would trust his comment greatly.

And why is it that democracy never occurs in socialist states? Why is it they always degenrate into murder and terror? Its because it is built into the very doctrine of Marxism.

Here are the population growth figures for various countries which makes it very unlikely for such a large number of people to have been killed by Stalin:

Country --- Year --- Population --- Year --- Population --- Annual Growth Rate
England --- 1920 --- 43'718 --- 1960 --- 52'559 --- 0,46%
France --- 1920 --- 38'750 --- 1960 --- 45'684 --- 0,41%
Germany --- 1920 --- 61'794 --- 1960 --- 72'664 --- 0,41%
RF/USSR --- 1913 --- 159'153 --- 1959 --- 208'827 --- 0,60%

There have been many arguments about the exact numbers killed which range from around 700,000 to 20 million although it is likely to be no more than a few million. Here is a quote from an investigation requested by Khrushchev:

According to the data available at the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR from 1921 up to the beginning of 1954 the Board of the Department of Central Political Administrative Board (DCPAB) Troikas of People's Commissariat of the Internal Affairs, a Special meeting of the Military Boards, the Courts and the Military Tribunals convicted 3,777,380 people, including 642,980 people convicted to capital punishment, 2,369,220 people to serve in work camps and in prison, 765,180 people convicted into exile and deportation. Out of the total number of people convicted for counter-revolutionary activities about 2.9 million were convicted by the Board of DCPAB, Troikas of People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs, a Special meeting (i.e. by the extra-judicial bodies) and 877,000 people were convicted by the Courts and the Military Tribunals. At present, 467,946 people convicted for counter-revolutionary crimes, are kept in camps and prisons and apart from that 62,462 people are in exile after having served their sentences for the counter-revolutionary crimes.

A survey by a former leader of the USSR? Wow, you really know how to pick your sources dont you? The only more biased one would be a report by Stalin himself.

But how can a socialist society perpetuate itself if people are unwilling to share with the community?

The idea is that if a revolution (be it a peaceful, democratic one or a true, armed revolution) has taken place, the majority of people will be supporting it.

Note: I am not a Communist, I'm a Democratic Socialist.

In my experience there is no such thing. Once a socialist gains power then they quickly revert to their natural state of Marixst infused hatred for the ruling classes and freedom in general. Democratic socialists is just a name for communists who wanted to be elected into their power rather than have a revolution.

In my experience there is no such thing. Once a socialist gains power then they quickly revert to their natural state of Marixst infused hatred for the ruling classes and freedom in general. Democratic socialists is just a name for communists who wanted to be elected into their power rather than have a revolution.
Well, Myrth is a democratic socialist, so you are obviously wrong in your assumption that they do not exist, along with your misconstruing of the ideals of Marx.
;)

Here are the population growth figures for various countries which makes it very unlikely for such a large number of people to have been killed by Stalin:

Country --- Year --- Population --- Year --- Population --- Annual Growth Rate
England --- 1920 --- 43'718 --- 1960 --- 52'559 --- 0,46%
France --- 1920 --- 38'750 --- 1960 --- 45'684 --- 0,41%
Germany --- 1920 --- 61'794 --- 1960 --- 72'664 --- 0,41%
RF/USSR --- 1913 --- 159'153 --- 1959 --- 208'827 --- 0,60%


Actually, those numbers prove very little. Just that the Russian population was growing faster than those of Western European nations. And given that populations tend to explode during times of hardship (or after victories in major wars) these numbers might show more than you'd think. You also have to realize that the USSR absorbed parts of several eastern european nations. The fact that the USSR did in fact exhibit such growth in the face of the German military killing millions of Russians is also interesting, and perhaps lends more credence to the more people killed theory.

The numbers I would much rather see are per-parent birth rates. Those could give us some more useable data.

A survey by a former leader of the USSR? Wow, you really know how to pick your sources dont you? The only more biased one would be a report by Stalin himself.

Again you discredit yourself. Krushchev was a staunch opponent of Stalin - in fact he did everything he could to discredit him, including having his body removed from the Lenin Mausoleum and buried next to a small memorial.

people are allowed to believe whatever they wish and that cant be stopped by banning a symbol

Socialism= Sounds good, but is really not so good.

Capitalism=Corrupt, although if you are good enough you can become rich.

Communism= Sounds great on paper, impossible to put into practice(all attempts descend into maniacle, genocidal dictatorships).

These all suck. But I have my own system!

Jonism!(my name is Jon, BTW)

The Great Leader Jon(myself), makes all of the decision for the state. The Great Leader Jon leads the Armed Forces, makes all foreign policy decisions, set's tax rates etc.

To keep the liberals happy, however, it still includes the Free Market system. But this is Free Market with a twist. In this Free Market, everything on the market is free to Jon.


I am a Meik(political) Miekist(economic).

Miekism is a capitalist form of communism. I hate both. What happens is all buisness is owned by the government. The workers work for the thing the are most able to. The workers get paid for what their neccisities. (Communist so far). The workers then get paid based on their performance.

The idea is that if a revolution (be it a peaceful, democratic one or a true, armed revolution) has taken place, the majority of people will be supporting it.

Actually not. Most revolutions are things that occur in the capital of a country and so usually only reflect the views of the capital.

The French Revolution of 1789 - Much of the country remained staunchly royalist long into the Revolution and indeed still are today. However the Parisian intelligencia (and the Parisian mob, the biggest factor during the entire of that revolution) were in control of the capital and so were able to inflict their opinions on the regime.

The English Civil War 1642 - London went for Parliament however a large amount of the country went for Charles I

The Russian Revolution 1917 - Much of Russia were for the Tsars - thats why during the early 1920s the Lenin regime suffered a huge probelm from the White Russian Armies who gained vast amounts of support from the peasantry.

Wow, my previous post was confusing sounding, so here, I'll try to make it more orderly:

-Populations tend to grow during times of hardship (check) and times shortly after major war victories (check)

-The USSR absorbed terrritory from several Eastern European nations, places like Poland and such.

-The fact that such population growth is exhibited even in the face of the losses inflicted by the Germans is interesting.

I also just noticed

The 60% growth rate is also over a six year longer time period than the periods listed for the other nations. That's about 8% longer with a population that is larger than all three of the others combined. So, we must view that as well.

Actually, i believe a few swiss, might have been someone else though, were all that answered Constantinople's call for help, but it was one of several events that led to the crusades, the last straw being the burning of the Church of the Sepulchre by an Egyptian caliph years later, not unlike the Spanish-American war, a series of events culminating in the Maine incident/accident (never truly been proven to be Spain's fault)

Crap. The First Crusade, the People's Crusade and the Children's Crusade were all caused by Muslim aggression towards Constantinople- at that time the largest Christian city on Earth. All of the above crusades were caused by Emperor Commenus asking for help from the Pope, who with his second in command Bernard of Clairvaux rallied the europeans and told them that they could save their souls by rescuing the Holy Land from the infidel. The Swiss didn't even exist, you moron. Their country didn't exist, their brand of language didn't exist. And, also, the Church of the Sepulchre WAS BUILT BY CRUSADERS. Where's your logic??? How could that have been the trigger of the crusades

In my experience there is no such thing. Once a socialist gains power then they quickly revert to their natural state of Marixst infused hatred for the ruling classes and freedom in general. Democratic socialists is just a name for communists who wanted to be elected into their power rather than have a revolution.

Communism is different from socialism. Socialism is a reform, communism is a violent overthrough.

I'm in a philosophy of statistics class, so forgive me for being nit-picky with the chart.

people are allowed to believe whatever they wish and banning a symbol will do nothing

Are we going to go back to the base topic, or just continue the pointless arguement about Stalin?

Again you discredit yourself. Krushchev was a staunch opponent of Stalin - in fact he did everything he could to discredit him, including having his body removed from the Lenin Mausoleum and buried next to a small memorial.

Yes he might have hated Stalin, I admit that much. However did he hate the Soviet state? No. If he released the true figure of 20 million, then his own regime would have been damaged in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of the Russian public. Therefore he probably understated the figures enough not to damage the reputation of the state but not enough to prevent any damge being done to Stalin.

But, seriously, my issue with banning the swastika is a standard issue response. Free speech means free speech for all, including those whose opinions you disagree with, and find revolting.

For one thing, Jews are required to wear skull caps, not just to show their religion, but because you have to cover your head when in God's presence, and God is allegedly everywhere. It's not an option. It's a choice between state law and religious law, and an Orthodox Jew would be forced to go to private school.
For Muslims, I don't know.

Well thats the French law.

people are allowed to believe whatever they wish and that cant be stopped by banning a symbol
but views can be repressed, i'd consider freedom of expression (and religion in the case of Hindus and Buddhists), a supposedly "inalienable right" to cover symbols, be it the hammer and sickle, chrstian cross, asian swastika,nazi swastika, or the CNN logo

on a completely unrelated note, can anyone confirm it was the swiss that came to constantinople's aid?

Communism is different from socialism. Socialism is a reform, communism is a violent overthrough.

Generally where one is the other follows. Like lightening and thunder or teenagers and awful rock music

but views can be repressed, i'd consider freedom of expression (and religion in the case of Hindus and Buddhists), a supposedly "inalienable right" to cover symbols, be it the hammer and sickle, chrstian cross, asian swastika,nazi swastika, or the CNN logo

on a completely unrelated note, can anyone confirm it was the swiss that came to constantinople's aid?

Europe came united under christianity

but views can be repressed, i'd consider freedom of expression (and religion in the case of Hindus and Buddhists), a supposedly "inalienable right" to cover symbols, be it the hammer and sickle, chrstian cross, asian swastika,nazi swastika, or the CNN logo

on a completely unrelated note, can anyone confirm it was the swiss that came to constantinople's aid?

Knowing of the Swiss's legendary status as a mercenary army of the Church, I would assume so. However I cannot say for certain

The idea is that if a revolution (be it a peaceful, democratic one or a true, armed revolution) has taken place, the majority of people will be supporting it.

The majority may, but what about the minority that doesn't and the capitalist class that has just been overthrown? They obviously aren't treated the same as everyone else.

Just wondering if anyone knew...
Under the Denazification laws of 1948, that the Allies themselves implemented, the Swastika is a banned symbol in Germany and Austria, both countries that consider themselves pinnacles of free speech.
Both countries keep this law today. Computer games are changed for German versions, and model airplanes no longer display the swastika.

On an aside: Austria is so vehemently Catholic that every state school must display a crucifix. And a state flag.

Europe came united under christianity
not during the seige. they came years later after several other events, a few hundred swiss(? on nationality) helped fight off the ottoman attack.

Europe came united under christianity

For how long though? Spain only managed to great rid of the Muslims in the 1200/1400s. By 1500s Lutherism was beginning to take a grip along with Calvinism. By the 1600s religion divided Europe far more than it ever united it.

Generally where one is the other follows. Like lightening and thunder or teenagers and awful rock music

Communism: Violent overthrow led by several year reign of proliteriates to achieve government total control of buisness and employees getting nothing but the nessicites

Socialism: Reform brought upon by laws to redistrubute the wealth more evenly.

They have similar goals but their ways are opposites. Communist wont work with socialists as socialists wont work with communist. Read the other damnable post that gets in to it in more depth written by me

wow, this is getting really off-topic

not during the seige. they came years later after several other events, a few hundred swiss(? on nationality) helped fight off the ottoman attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_crusade

This link should show you what you need to know. ie that the first crusade was after a call for help from Byzantium.

not during the seige. they came years later after several other events, a few hundred swiss(? on nationality) helped fight off the ottoman attack.

For some reason I want to say that it was the Teutons, might be wrong thpugh.

Yes he might have hated Stalin, I admit that much. However did he hate the Soviet state? No. If he released the true figure of 20 million, then his own regime would have been damaged in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of the Russian public. Therefore he probably understated the figures enough not to damage the reputation of the state but not enough to prevent any damge being done to Stalin.

If Khrushchev didn't want to damage the reputation of the USSR he could simply not have released any figures at all. Khrushchev was prepared to admit everything that Stalin did and in his speech to the 20th Congress of the CPSU he talks about how Stalin murdered all the important members of the Communist Party and the armed forces and he also releases information on the mass deportations of members of ethnic minorities. You can read the speech at http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/archive/khrushchev/1956/02/24-abs.htm. The study which I quoted from was requested directly by Khrushchev and it is unlikely that he would have been given false information.

In regards to the population growth rate it is unlikely that the USSR which suffered far more than any other country in the war would have grown faster than Britain if so many millions of people were being deliberately murdered. The territory of the USSR was extended into small areas of other countries after the war but this wouldn't have accounted for a significant increase.

not during the seige. they came years later after several other events, a few hundred swiss(? on nationality) helped fight off the ottoman attack.

It went Catholics sent to help being sent by italian ships. HRE, France, I believe spain and i think britain were involved. Catholics won and divided the land for reasons i dont know

Muslims attacked again. Same people. They lost.

The europeans tried to retake it thinking that the kiings will boost moral. Barbarosa drowned while crossing the desert because he forgot to take his armor off before jumping into water (several months in a desert would do that to you). Phillip II? maybe first fled as soon as he got there. Richard stayed and lived. Europeans lost

Another insignigicant one

Children's crusade. Thought that children would lead them to victory. The ships went to africa for some reason and all 20,000 14 or so year olds were enslaved.

Communism: Violent overthrow led by several year reign of proliteriates to achieve government total control of buisness and employees getting nothing but the nessicites

Socialism: Reform brought upon by laws to redistrubute the wealth more evenly.

They have similar goals but their ways are opposites. Communist wont work with socialists as socialists wont work with communist. Read the other damnable post that gets in to it in more depth written by me

Ha thats laughable. When people have the same goals they dont generally care about methods. Let us take a quote from the great Winston Churchill (one the first to propose the neccessarily but alas unacted upon crusade against socialist Russia)

"If Hitler were to invade Hell I would at least make favourable consultations with the Devil"

So Churchill, a man who hated socialism, was willing to join with them because they had the same goals as him (i..e destruction of Nazi Germany). I dont find it hard to believe that socialists and communists would work together if pushed.

For some reason I want to say that it was the Teutons, might be wrong thpugh.

Teutons are germans. The reign of the teutonic knight ended in the 1300s after one defeat. Other then that they were invincible.

Ha thats laughable. When people have the same goals they dont generally care about methods.
Here's where you have it wrong. Socialists do not support the same ideals as communism. They do not want the exact same thing.

If Khrushchev didn't want to damage the reputation of the USSR he could simply not have released any figures at all. Khrushchev was prepared to admit everything that Stalin did and in his speech to the 20th Congress of the CPSU he talks about how Stalin murdered all the important members of the Communist Party and the armed forces and he also releases information on the mass deportations of members of ethnic minorities. You can read the speech at http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/archive/khrushchev/1956/02/24-abs.htm. The study which I quoted from was requested directly by Khrushchev and it is unlikely that he would have been given false information.

In regards to the population growth rate it is unlikely that the USSR which suffered far more than any other country in the war would have grown faster than Britain if so many millions of people were being deliberately murdered. The territory of the USSR was extended into small areas of other countries after the war but this wouldn't have accounted for a significant increase.

Unlikely that the head of the Societ State would give false information? Are you on a different planet or merely on some sort of drug? The one thing that all the Soviet leaders could do well was lie. That was about all they could do well - running a state was quite beyond their dubious qualities.

Ha thats laughable. When people have the same goals they dont generally care about methods. Let us take a quote from the great Winston Churchill (one the first to propose the neccessarily but alas unacted upon crusade against socialist Russia)

"If Hitler were to invade Hell I would at least make favourable consultations with the Devil"

So Churchill, a man who hated socialism, was willing to join with them because they had the same goals as him (i..e destruction of Nazi Germany). I dont find it hard to believe that socialists and communists would work together if pushed.

Balance of powers is different. The socialist and communist have different methods that are the opposite. Communists laugh at socialists. That is like saying fascists would willingly work with nazis for no reason. Mussolini worked with hitler because he was afraid of being taken over.

Here's where you have it wrong. Socialists do not support the same ideals as communism. They do not want the exact same thing.

They have similar goals but their ways are opposites. Communist wont work with socialists as socialists wont work with communist

Thats who I was responding to. So who is right? Which socialist is right? It is like picking two mentally ill patients and asking which one is the more deranged.

The europeans tried to retake it thinking that the kiings will boost moral. Barbarosa drowned while crossing the desert because he forgot to take his armor off before jumping into water (several months in a desert would do that to you). Phillip II? maybe first fled as soon as he got there. Richard stayed and lived. Europeans lost


What? Sorry, but Kaiser Frederick Barbarossa drowned crossing from the Balkans (where he had been waging a bloody crusade against the heretic Slavs) down to the Holy Lands. He never made it to the desert. He was still in the HRE when he FELL OFF HIS HORSE whilst crossing a ford during a rainstorm. Instead of dry-drowning in the desert, or jumping anywhere (hard with that armour on) he fell off his horse and drowned in the confusion.

Phillip II made a sizeable contribution to the Second Crusade, but 'fled' because of what he purported to be sickness. In fact, he merely had his eyes on the English holdings in France...

Unlikely that the head of the Societ State would give false information? Are you on a different planet or merely on some sort of drug? The one thing that all the Soviet leaders could do well was lie. That was about all they could do well - running a state was quite beyond their dubious qualities.

I said it is unlikely that the General Secretary would have been given false information in a report which he had personally requested.

Thats who I was responding to. So why is right? Which socialist is right? It is like picking two mentally ill patients and asking which one is the more deranged.
Neither of us said contradictory things. Socialists want a similar thing to communists. not the exact same thing. Their ways are different, they hold different ideals as to go about everything.

If Khrushchev didn't want to damage the reputation of the USSR he could simply not have released any figures at all. Khrushchev was prepared to admit everything that Stalin did and in his speech to the 20th Congress of the CPSU he talks about how Stalin murdered all the important members of the Communist Party and the armed forces and he also releases information on the mass deportations of members of ethnic minorities. You can read the speech at http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/archive/khrushchev/1956/02/24-abs.htm. The study which I quoted from was requested directly by Khrushchev and it is unlikely that he would have been given false information.

In regards to the population growth rate it is unlikely that the USSR which suffered far more than any other country in the war would have grown faster than Britain if so many millions of people were being deliberately murdered. The territory of the USSR was extended into small areas of other countries after the war but this wouldn't have accounted for a significant increase.

Here's the thing, the Soviet government was notorious for not giving truly accurate reports, even to the Politburo. All government prepare three types of reports on a situation (best case, medium case, worst case) and the Soviet bureaucracy was notorious for giving the best case scenario stuff all of the time. Mainly to gain approval from the high-ranking people.

And beyond that, this is dealing with far more than with just that absorbed post WWII. We're also dealing with stuff acquired post WWI. Such as the Ukraine, and parts of Byelorussia and the like. (Lots absorbed during the aftermath of the Polish/Soviet war.) So, there is far more to the numbers you used than just standard issue population growth.

Thats who I was responding to. So who is right? Which socialist is right? It is like picking two mentally ill patients and asking which one is the more deranged.

wrong

communism is a good system if it worked and didnt ignore human nature. Socialism is a utopian idea

the outcome is good if it works

What? Sorry, but Kaiser Frederick Barbarossa drowned crossing from the Balkans (where he had been waging a bloody crusade against the heretic Slavs) down to the Holy Lands. He never made it to the desert. He was still in the HRE when he FELL OFF HIS HORSE whilst crossing a ford during a rainstorm. Instead of dry-drowning in the desert, or jumping anywhere (hard with that armour on) he fell off his horse and drowned in the confusion.

Phillip II made a sizeable contribution to the Second Crusade, but 'fled' because of what he purported to be sickness. In fact, he merely had his eyes on the English holdings in France...

His death was debatable

communism is a good system if it worked and didnt ignore human nature. Socialism is a utopian idea
:confused:
I always heard people say that the other way around...

I really do think we should get back to the original reason for this thread.

Here's the thing, the Soviet government was notorious for not giving truly accurate reports, even to the Politburo. All government prepare three types of reports on a situation (best case, medium case, worst case) and the Soviet bureaucracy was notorious for giving the best case scenario stuff all of the time. Mainly to gain approval from the high-ranking people.

And beyond that, this is dealing with far more than with just that absorbed post WWII. We're also dealing with stuff acquired post WWI. Such as the Ukraine, and parts of Byelorussia and the like. (Lots absorbed during the aftermath of the Polish/Soviet war.) So, there is far more to the numbers you used than just standard issue population growth.

Which Polish-Soviet War?

Because in the one between the world wars, we wiped the floor with them commies(I say "we" because I am at least 80% Polish, although I am an American). When they invaded during WWII that wasn't much of a war, seeing how during the first part(before Barbarossa) we were fighting the Nazis and the commies, and in the second part(after the Nazi's had been pushed out of Russia) they were fighting the Nazi's.

Neither of us said contradictory things. Socialists want a similar thing to communists. not the exact same thing. Their ways are different, they hold different ideals as to go about everything.

The British wanted the defeat of Nazi Germany. The Soviets wanted the defeat of Nazi Germany. However the British wanted independence to be returned to Poland while the Soviets wanted to place a puppet regime there.

The point to my example? People ally to achieve one main goal depsite their difference in opinion as to the details. As is the way with socialists and communists if either get a whiff of power enter into their nostrils.

I really do think we should get back to the original reason for this thread.
Seconded. I'm no longer going to respond to posts outside the original urpose of the thread, as I've been one o fthe major participants in this threadjack. Oops.

I really do think we should get back to the original reason for this thread.

I concur.

Sure, now my idea has merit. 2 pages after I said it. I suppose I'll always be ahead of the times...
:D

bye guys. Now i think 6/8 pages were off topic

bye guys. Now i think 6/8 pages were off topic

Prolly ;).

But yeah, like I've said before, you should have the right to say and express any opinion you want, no matter how despicable you may find it.

Now there is a difference between expressing an opinion to sway public opinion, and conspiring to commit a crime, but that's not the question at hand.

the outcome is good if it works

And so far it hasnt. Out of the many states it has been tried in, it has failed. Socialism is an impossible fantasy realm, something that cannot be achieved. It ignores the basic need that all humans have: the need for hierarchy. Hierarchies haven't just emerged randomly - people want them and have always wanted them. They are simply the best organisational unit. No people ever want to get rid of hierarchy - thats why socialism always ends up as yet another hierarchy (usually more draconian than the one they replaced).

Why? Simple. The people who bring about revolutions are the middle class. Most true, indoctrinated socialists are middle class intelligensia (like Lenin) who merely want to remove the current hierarchy and replace it with their own.

Its as Orwell said: the top and the middle layers of society exchange positions and the working class are usually just a weapon in their hands. Most working class socialists aren't true socialists: they just want a better wage out of some misplaced notion of greed, cynicism and bitterness at their lot in life.

But yeah, like I've said before, you should have the right to say and express any opinion you want, no matter how despicable you may find it.

Now there is a difference between expressing an opinion to sway public opinion, and conspiring to commit a crime, but that's not the question at hand.
Ditto here. Everyone should have the right to express whatever opinion they feel the need to.

The problem with the KKK cross burning example is that people generally don't associate crosses with the KKK. To the average guy in the street, if you ask them what they associate with a cross, they'd most likely say Christianity. If you ask the same guy what he associates a swastika with, he's going to say Nazism, or Hitler - something along those lines.

Then we must work to eradicate the ignorance, not mindlessly brand the symbol as evil.

isnt there a blue swasika that was finnish representing peace?


Since noone responded to that, yeah the Finnish were using the swastika(Im still terrible with spelling it)) during the Russo-Finnish War

I'm against banning swastikas... therefore you can't ban them.
(That is the only "logical" arguement you can have against ppeople who demand that a 6 stroke symbol be banned.)

I'm a Jew, and I think Swastikas have to be one of the coolest designs in the world.

Incidentally, the Nazis stole the design from Romans, not the Hindus, who also had a swastika like symbol signifying power (or something).

Meh, Hindu's still use their swastikas anyway, in my experience. Everyone knows they're not a hateful symbol. And it's easily explained.

Out of interest. What do Hindus call their swastika?

Swastikas. :D

Swastikas. :D

Really?

That sounds very German.

Really?

That sounds very German.
No it doesn't

In Buddhism, the swastika stands for love and prosperity, though it there is most often drawn rotating counter-clockwise, in contrast to the Nazi clockwise rotation:

http://www.hostultra.com/~Exidor/Swastika/FALUN.GIF

Really?

That sounds very German.
I'm pretty sure Swasti mean peace in Sanskrit. Not 100% sure though.

I'm pretty sure Swasti mean peace in Sanskrit. Not 100% sure though.

"SWASTIKA" is derived from the Sanskrit word "SVASTIKAH", which means "being fortunate".

http://www.hostultra.com/~Exidor/Swastika/Swastika.html

Well there ya go. :)

And it's "shanti" that's peace. Doh!

No it doesn't
Sorry, should have put "imo" there somewhere.

"SWASTIKA" is derived from the Sanskrit word "SVASTIKAH", which means "being fortunate".

http://www.hostultra.com/~Exidor/Swastika/Swastika.html

Thanks

The 45th Infantry Division, US ARMY National Guard used the Swastika up until 1939 or 1940 as their shoulder patch. It was changed to a stylized "thunderbird."

The Swastika had a meaning before WWII. It has a different meaning now. Time, and events, changes things.


the swastika has lots of meanings now, and has at least one unfortunate meaning that it has gained since the 1930s. That doesn't mean that global culture has forgotten all the other meanings.

In Buddhism, the swastika stands for love and prosperity, though it there is most often drawn rotating counter-clockwise, in contrast to the Nazi clockwise rotation:

http://www.hostultra.com/~Exidor/Swastika/FALUN.GIF

In buddhism it is also drawn rotating clockwise. A lot. I think you would have to count a lot of swastikas to say whether it was clockwise or anti clockwise most often. ime it is more often drawn clockwise.