NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I could understand the restrictions until they made an effort to westernize and change their countries around, but yeah, they have done that. I mean I think Japan should be allowed to have their army back. They are one of our greatest allies, have totally changed their country 180 degrees since WWII, and are forever a different people. I beleive its the same with Germany and the Germans, although admittidly, I do beleive that Japan changed more than Germany did. However, I beleive that Germany has seen the the error in its ways, has truley changed, and should not be treated like a criminal out on parole. On second note I would just like to say, I would like to see Germany stop being such a pussy. They are so afraid of their conservative past that they dont want to do anything that they think might reflect on it, even if it doesnt.
I will agree here. Do keep in mind however, Japan retained its Emperor, unlike Germany which abolished its Monarch post WW-1. So Japan may have changed, but it still has many of its old traditions.

Yes there is Brandenburg and Berlin but neither are actually Prussia, theres is nothing around Danzig as it is now very much polish and is called G'dansk and in fact the traditional prussian capital was Koenigsberg not Berlin, now called Kaliningrad and very much a russian city.

As for Prussian blood i think you will find that the Brandenburgers are exactly that Bradenburgers (with origins in the older Ascanian colonies), Prussian blood as such would refer to the Germans (with varying admixtures of Slavic blood) leaving in what was Silesia, West and East Prussia and to the now extinct baltic people who left there name to the most eastern of the German nations, many of whom fled to the devided germany after the war and were scattered across both post war German republics, in comparison Bayern has retained its populace,territory,dialect and culture.

I am in Berlin at the moment and there is now way you could describe it as a 'Prussian' city, not anymore.

lol, of course not, Prussia isnt a state, nor a country anymore. I was just saying, it still lives on through history, I didnt mean physically.

The second part is just left wing bullshit, but to "And do you honestly think that people benefit from counteries actualy being conservative?" I will say, uh, YEAH.

Okay, just out of interest, name one social benefit of a country being conservative.

thats true, i remember reading a speech by Hitler were he used the Armenia genocide as an example of what you can get away with.
Wasn't he right though? I mean they still get away with it really.

Just to make a point.... You can be a German jew.
Which the "Nazi's" did relocate to wherever.... (Not all germans were Nazis)

I am a German Jew, by background, but my nationality is American.

They are so afraid of their conservative past that they dont want to do anything that they think might reflect on it, even if it doesnt.
I don't quite understand that sentence - what is a conservative past what should they do that might reflect on it but doesn't

Okay, just out of interest, name one social benefit of a country being conservative.

Capitalism, religion, values, morals, no legalizing hard drugs, no gay marriage, no welfare (or less than under left leadership), tighter immigration....I could go on forever....prison and death penalty instead of "rehabilition", gun owndership.....

Wasn't he right though? I mean they still get away with it really.
yes they do, despite the rest of the world accepting historical fact, hell there is a turkish journalist on trial at the moment for writing that the genocide did indeed take place. In eastern turkey many of the Armenian churches and Khachkars (armenian stone crosses that dot the landscape) are dissappearing as if the turkish authorities are trying to erase all trace of the 3000 year presence of the armenian in eastern anatolia.

I don't quite understand that sentence - what is a conservative past what should they do that might reflect on it but doesn't

I didnt mean conservative...I meant ultra conservative, like Nazis....they are so afraid of their past that they act like the biggest pussies just to be sensitive and careful....I dunno thats just what I get out of it though, to each his own.

yes they do, despite the rest of the world accepting historical fact, hell there is a turkish journalist on trial at the moment for writing that the genocide did indeed take place. In eastern turkey many of the Armenian churches and Khachkars (armenian stone crosses that dot the landscape) are dissappearing as if the turkish authorities are trying to erase all trace of the 3000 year presence of the armenian in eastern anatolia.
They might succeed. Whatever the case may be, I just hope they don't gain entry into the EU. I would rather see Russia entering.

lol, of course not, Prussia isnt a state, nor a country anymore. I was just saying, it still lives on through history, I didnt mean physically.

sorry i am very pro-Bayern, Prussia was never that popular in the south of Germany.:)

I think he is referring

Last time I checked, I was female :rolleyes:

They might succeed. Whatever the case may be, I just hope they don't gain entry into the EU. I would rather see Russia entering.

and armenia if for no other reason than to piss off the turks.

Capitalism, religion, values, morals, no legalizing hard drugs, no gay marriage, no welfare (or less than under left leadership), tighter immigration....I could go on forever....prison and death penalty instead of "rehabilition", gun owndership.....
Gay marriage's abolishment being an achievement? :p

Last time I checked, I was female :rolleyes:
I apologise :p I have referred to others as she, only to find out they are male. I will use impersonal pronouns from now on, like "they" :p

Capitalism, religion, values, morals, no legalizing hard drugs, no gay marriage, no welfare (or less than under left leadership), tighter immigration....I could go on forever....prison and death penalty instead of "rehabilition", gun owndership.....

How are most of those benefits?
Caipalism is ecomonic, and only the rich benefit from that (a minority)
religion - that is accepted in all ideologies except for extreme right
Values and morality - they are promotied through tradition in conservatism, one where tradition could be rape and pilliage... hmmm, moral.
and as for the rest... how can a government tell people what's right and wrong. And gay marriage - why the fuck does that concern a government - if it;s a western government it's generaly founded upon christianity, so you should be safe in the knowledge that any homosexuals will go to hell. matters such as that are for the people to decide, not a government.

To bring the thread more back in line with the OT:
The biggest political difference between modern Germany and other countries is that it has dealt with its past more than most. This is not only reflected internationally in its attitude towards Israel but also nationally in the way it legally deals with right wing propaganda and especially Holocaust deniers. The crimes of the third reich are extensively dealt with in school, classes go to concentration camps etc. As opposed to Japan which officially does not really confront its past, Germany has done that to a great extent.

So for most Germans it doesn't matter if 2, 4, 6, or 10 Million people died in the concentration camps and how big the percentage of Jews was, but that it happened at all - that ones grandparents were, however slightly, probably responsible for the attrocities committed.

I didnt mean conservative...I meant ultra conservative, like Nazis....they are so afraid of their past that they act like the biggest pussies just to be sensitive and careful....I dunno thats just what I get out of it though, to each his own.
Ah, ok. Although the "Nazis" were not actually ultra conservative. The party was called National Socialist - and the socialist was not just a token thing, they actually took a lot of socialist ideas on board.

To bring the thread more back in line with the OT:
The biggest political difference between modern Germany and other countries is that it has dealt with its past more than most. This is not only reflected internationally in its attitude towards Israel but also nationally in the way it legally deals with right wing propaganda and especially Holocaust deniers. The crimes of the third reich are extensively dealt with in school, classes go to concentration camps etc. As opposed to Japan which officially does not really confront its past, Germany has done that to a great extent.

So for most Germans it doesn't matter if 2, 4, 6, or 10 Million people died in the concentration camps and how big the percentage of Jews was, but that it happened at all - that ones grandparents were, however slightly, probably responsible for the attrocities committed.

Well said, and thats a very good point about Japan, there has little or no remorse shown by Japan over the extensive sufferings it caused in East Asia (look up the horros of the Nanking road for a start), Germany on the other hand is frank in its dealings regarding the crimes of the past.

I agree, let's not drag this OT into a liberal/conservative debate. I also agree that Germany has confronted its past more, but Japan has changed as well. I don't think Japan has a society/government that could create another WW, but at the same time I don't think they've grasped exactly what happened either.

Well said, and thats a very good point about Japan, there has little or no remorse shown by Japan over the extensive sufferings it caused in East Asia (look up the horros of the Nanking road for a start), Germany on the other hand is frank in its dealings regarding the crimes of the past.

That haveing been said, It's the people, the leaders of/within the nation that act, not the nation itself.
So many years down the line, why should a 'nation' be blamed for it's actions, rather than the people who led the nation at that time.

Forgive me - I'm quite a marxist with my views, i dont agree with boarders.

I apologise :p I have referred to others as she, only to find out they are male. I will use impersonal pronouns from now on, like "they" :p


:fluffle: Never mind :) :fluffle:

The party was called National Socialist - and the socialist was not just a token thing, they actually took a lot of socialist ideas on board.


Ahhh, I see! That's why they gassed communists and socialists and outlawed e.g. the Socialist Party in Austria! :rolleyes:

That haveing been said, It's the people, the leaders of/within the nation that act, not the nation itself.
So many years down the line, why should a 'nation' be blamed for it's actions, rather than the people who led the nation at that time.

Forgive me - I'm quite a marxist with my views, i dont agree with boarders.
Aside from your last statement, I agree wholly with you.

Aside from your last statement, I agree wholly with you.


Perhaps with time.... ;)

I also agree that Germany has confronted its past more, but Japan has changed as well.
I didn't want express in my post that Japan hasn't changed. Only there I think the difference in official dealing with the past and the general attitude of the population is greater than in Germany.

Ahhh, I see! That's why they gassed communists and socialists and outlawed e.g. the Socialist Party in Austria! :rolleyes:
So, what has that to do with having socialist ideas in their programme? I agree that it wasn't their main focus, but it did exist. Mainly I just wanted to express that they weren't ultra conservative in their outlook. A very interesting book came out recently about sexual mores in the third reich and I think most conservatives would shudder. Also the economy was much more strictly regulated than in a comparable "pure" capitalist state.

So, what has that to do with having socialist ideas in their programme? I agree that it wasn't their main focus, but it did exist. Mainly I just wanted to express that they weren't ultra conservative in their outlook. A very interesting book came out recently about sexual mores in the third reich and I think most conservatives would shudder. Also the economy was much more strictly regulated than in a comparable "pure" capitalist state.

The Nazi's opposed not only the left wing but dispised the traditional right, the Nazi's were radical in there outlook compared to the right wing parties of the time, some of whom were monarchists looking the restoration of the Hohenzollerns.

The Nazi's opposed not only the left wing but dispised the traditional right, the Nazi's were radical in there outlook compared to the right wing parties of the time, some of whom were monarchists looking the restoration of the Hohenzollerns.
Precisely. The Right in Germany detested the Nazis. They thought little more of them than being unwashed, radical upstarts. They were its only means of gaining power though.

I didn't want express in my post that Japan hasn't changed. Only there I think the difference in official dealing with the past and the general attitude of the population is greater than in Germany.
I didn't take it as such. I was saying I agreed with you.:)

So, what has that to do with having socialist ideas in their programme? I agree that it wasn't their main focus, but it did exist. Mainly I just wanted to express that they weren't ultra conservative in their outlook. A very interesting book came out recently about sexual mores in the third reich and I think most conservatives would shudder. Also the economy was much more strictly regulated than in a comparable "pure" capitalist state.

The Nazis were not really socialist. But that doesn't make them conservative either. Ultra-rightwing yes, but not ultra-conservative.

Many people associate being conservative with being religious. Now, the Nazis were far from being religious. In some cases, they abused religious terms for their own ideology (see the "poem" (oh, horrible, to use a wonderful word like poem for something like that) "SS-Weihnacht"), but mostly, they just oppressed religion. They tried to outlaw the Christmas song "Silent night, Holy night" and the Christmas tree-tradition... Do I have to say more?

I'm not too sure about the Nazi sexual morals. According to Lanz von Liebenfels, all women are evil and they should only be used for procreation. But that's all I know.

The economy was strictly regulated, because it was a dictatorship. And dictators tend to strictly regulate everything. Has not much to do with socialism (one could probably call me socialist, but I try to keep government out of economy).

I didn't take it as such. I was saying I agreed with you.:)
I know. That post wasn't directed at you, but I thought that perhaps a Japanese reader might be unintentionally offended

Have a :fluffle:

So, what has that to do with having socialist ideas in their programme? I agree that it wasn't their main focus, but it did exist. Mainly I just wanted to express that they weren't ultra conservative in their outlook. A very interesting book came out recently about sexual mores in the third reich and I think most conservatives would shudder. Also the economy was much more strictly regulated than in a comparable "pure" capitalist state.

The Nationalist Socialists (NSDAP) did have socialist ideas, which were greatly advertised innitialy, as they wanted to gain support from people who supported the Weimar Republic (which innitialy was constituted by social democrats) but they also wanted to gain support from those who were interested in National pride, and were unhappy with the treaty of versailles hence 'Nationalist'
Although their socialist ideas were kind of maintained, they were over shaddowed by their much more fascist ideas, such as the removal of social liberties etc.
And to make a point to a post earlier: The Nazi's removed all oppersition as they created a one party state, and exicuted all leaders of all opposing parties not just the socialist and communists. The reason that it's more commonly known that the communists were exicuted, is because the Nazi's were strongly against stalinist Russia (the soviets.) And all 'bloschevism' was put into a common enemy in which Nationalist socialists could oppose.

I never knew that Iceland was owned by Denmark. I always thought that Denmark owned Greenland, but even so, Denmark has a fairly clean record. I mean, they even helped Jews get out of Germany back in the Nazi days.
Finland was sort of taken by Russia and Sweden, but that did not mean that Finland itself commited any of the crimes that Russia did. As for Portugal, well, I know that they were a huge colonizer, but I have never heard of them actually slaughtering natives of the places they colonized, unlike the Spanish.
Denmark owned Norway, Iceland and Greenland at its peak, I think. It was very nearly a power. The modern Denmark is quite different from the old Denmark, most of the Scandanavian states WERE slightly better than the 'main' European states (England, Spain, the Netherlands, etc.), they were still vicious bastards if they had to be. Look up some of their wars with Russia and each other.
And Finland has had its share of nasty incidents. They were highly nationalist in the 1800's and early 1900's when they were trying to gain independance.

How are most of those benefits?
Caipalism is ecomonic, and only the rich benefit from that (a minority)
religion - that is accepted in all ideologies except for extreme right
Values and morality - they are promotied through tradition in conservatism, one where tradition could be rape and pilliage... hmmm, moral.
and as for the rest... how can a government tell people what's right and wrong. And gay marriage - why the fuck does that concern a government - if it;s a western government it's generaly founded upon christianity, so you should be safe in the knowledge that any homosexuals will go to hell. matters such as that are for the people to decide, not a government.

Dude, you asked me, I told you, its as simply as that, I dont beleive any of the shit you just told me, you dont accept any of the shit I told you, guess what, the world keeps on spinnin'.

Just wanted to let you know, I'm not Christian;)

Oh and also, I dont really know if all gays will go to hell or not, thats up to God to decide. I just happen to not agree with homosexuality, not agree with gay marriage, and not agree with gay adoption. No offense, Europa, you seem like a cool guy, I like your views on stuff, but these are my views on gays, thats how I was raised, and thats how I have become.

Ah, ok. Although the "Nazis" were not actually ultra conservative. The party was called National Socialist - and the socialist was not just a token thing, they actually took a lot of socialist ideas on board.

Thats what I think too, its just that, for reasons unknown to me, we are taught that the Nazis are uber conservatives....I dont know why.

I live in Australia. My father emigrated after the war, my mother in the 70s.
That explains it all. You don't feel secure enough with your own abilities, you question your self-worth and so you grasp at straws, even ridiculous ones like these:
You: "I'm special because I'm German."
Others: "Germans aren't special. They're just people like everyone else."
You: "Ahem....oh, yes, of course. But I'm not really German you see, I'm Allemannic!"

Well, whatever floats your boat, I guess. But rest assured that actual Germans will laugh at you for the things you say.

================================

And as for the Nazis and Socialism...
Some of the rhetoric was similiar. Most of the programs weren't.

And in practice, the Nazi economy was using a third-way command approach which was completely different from Socialism. Indeed, initially a lot of their support came from big business because they felt that the Nazis would protect their property against Socialism.

The Nazis were certainly not Conservative. They didn't want to conserve anything - instead they were one of the most revolutionary movements around.

I guess you could get away with calling them Ultra-Right because of their strong authoritarianism, but it'd probably be best to put them on a seperate scale alltogether.

But it wasn't just a holocaust of Jews. The exact totals are unknown but as many as 26 million people has been the estimate for people killed by Nazis in both death camps and extermination measures.

Calling it "the Jewish Holocaust" would be misleading.

Thats a straight out lie made by bolshevist communists. No more than 11 million were killed in the camps.

Keep these two things in mind:
- Germany was probably the most advanced country in the world at the start of the century. It had a lot of culture, people were positively proud of being part of this. Philosophy, music, science and all the rest of it were huge.
- Germany was one of the more multicultural societies in Europe. There never really was a single German people, nor was there a single German culture.


From what I remember in history class, Germany was in a depression. Hitler blamed Germany's economic problems on the Jews.

From what I remember in history class, Germany was in a depression. Hitler blamed Germany's economic problems on the Jews.
Of course it was, and of course he did.

But that doesn't change anything - it was a sudden, irrational spasm that gripped a modern, open and wealthy (despite current economic troubles) Western society, and turned it into a giant slaughterhouse.

Of course it was, and of course he did.

But that doesn't change anything - it was a sudden, irrational spasm that gripped a modern, open and wealthy (despite current economic troubles) Western society, and turned it into a giant slaughterhouse.

I disagree. There was a reason for it, it wasn't sudden. Irrational maybe, a spasm...perhaps. Wealthy? No, not at the time, from what I've read. Kind of like the US in the Great Depression.

Holy carp, this thread is long.

I feel the problem is that I hear of "the Holocaust's" anniversary, people going to feel bad about what's happened in the past, but never about any other event of mass murder. It's not just the word but how the world perceives that word.

This is what I have gotten out of this thread:

Calling it "the" holocaust is misleading in that there have been similar events. It should be considered one of the worst holocausts, perhaps, if not the worst, although there are definitely questions of how bad it is. I do have my doubts that it is the most atrocious act in history towards mankind. It doesn't matter if genocide or mass murdering is industrialized, mass murdering is mass murdering. It doesn't matter how you kill someone, in the end, they're dead. Killing is killing. When you claim, "Hitler's regime targeted Jews," you are belittling anything in comparison to genocide. It shouldn't matter why people are being killed in mass numbers, it should all be equally wrong, whether political, racial, religious or what have you. Groups of people have, throughout mankind's history, been murdered in mass numbers. The holocaust should have no importance over any other event unless it was wholly worse than those, which it is possibly not.

It's a coward nation. People call France cowardly, but at least they have a real army.

Isn't Germany not allowed to have an army? That's a bad point you're trying to make if so. Sorry if you're joking.

The second part is just left wing bullshit, but to "And do you honestly think that people benefit from counteries actualy being conservative?" I will say, uh, YEAH.

Capitalism, religion, values, morals, no legalizing hard drugs, no gay marriage, no welfare (or less than under left leadership), tighter immigration....I could go on forever....prison and death penalty instead of "rehabilition", gun owndership.....

That's kind of disturbing. I believe in some of what you stated but unless you are German why should you care what they do? Conservatism doesn't allow for changes in the world, so I don't support most of its concepts. I'm not referring to classical liberalism, but the concept that you need to cling onto stuffy, "moral" ideas. Anyway, that's off-topic.

I disagree. There was a reason for it, it wasn't sudden. Irrational maybe, a spasm...perhaps.
The reason was fabricated, and quite obviously so.
It was not like the very real thing that Communism was, where the construction of the new man had some sort of academic background. The new man idea was first as a direct result of the theory, the Communists later felt they had to implement it, and at the very end did they resort to mass murder to achieve it.
In the case of the Holocaust, it was the other way around - the irrational hatred came first, and justifications were sought for later.
As for irrationality, well, that is the central tenet of both Fascism and Nazism. Both are not possible without their appeal to the irrational side of the human being.

If you disagree tell me: What was the real, comprehensible and rational reason for the Holocaust?

Wealthy? No, not at the time, from what I've read. Kind of like the US in the Great Depression.
And that was still one of the wealthiest nations on earth. You need to understand: As bad as the depression was, it was not a complete and total breakdown of the country.
There were economic troubles, but they were nowhere near enough to actually explain why a society would suddenly turn away from reason into what was essentially a collective fit of insanity.

Thats what I think too, its just that, for reasons unknown to me, we are taught that the Nazis are uber conservatives....I dont know why.

Because some of their values could be construed as very conservative.

Fascist parties have always been opportunistic magpies. Taking values and policies that will attract enough people to get them power.

The party was called National Socialist - and the socialist was not just a token thing, they actually took a lot of socialist ideas on board.

This is misleading. I'm not contesting the fact the took on board socialist ideas (they did), however, they did not do so because of a commitment to or sympathy to socialism. But because they helped them achieve a goal.

It is telling that Hitler "eliminated" the left wing of the National Socialists after he had consolidated power.

Thats a straight out lie made by bolshevist communists. No more than 11 million were killed in the camps.

It is amusing because you make it sound like 11 million is an acceptaple number of deaths, for a fairly short time.

The Nazis were certainly not Conservative. They didn't want to conserve anything - instead they were one of the most revolutionary movements around.


It depends on how you define "conservative," they were certainly very reactionary, which is a possible trait of conservatism (though I'd stress that few conservatives would be as reactionary as the fascists).

But there are many aspects of fascist "ideology" that are very conservative, and which are still held by conservatives today. Such as "defense of the family unit," propagating a certain view of the way a family should function and try and make it the norm. "Defense of traditional morals and values," etc.

From what I remember in history class, Germany was in a depression.

Should you not have also remembered that practically the who world was in a depression?

Hitler blamed Germany's economic problems on the Jews.

Interestingly, I've read a bit of a book recently, written in the late 30's (published in 38 iirc, I'll get the title and author later, don't have it to hand right now), which did the same thing. With the reasoning being that Germany's poor economic state allowed Jews from poorer countries to come to Germany and make their fortune off the backs of good honest Germans.

Of course the guy was a complete fascist apologist (until Hitler lost) and a Hitler lover (until Hitler lost), he was also a journalist for the Daily Mail, which has never been known for its quality of journalism. But I mention it, because it was a view I'd never come across before and it made me laugh.

The reason was fabricated, and quite obviously so.
[...]
I don't think anti-semetism is anything new.
If you disagree tell me: What was the real, comprehensible and rational reason for the Holocaust?
Germany was in an economic depression, Hitler was an irrational, racist fanatic who didn't make it into the art school he wanted so he ran for government (AFAIK). I don't think all of society was nuts, just some of it - enough of it to get the rest to behave like meek little sheep, Hitler the herder. Even Time magazine put him as "Man of the Year" once. If you're in power and you fanatically hate someone, why not kill them if you can get away with it?

I'm not saying it's rational in that any of us would do it in that situation, though.

Should you not have also remembered that practically the who world was in a depression? (sic)

I know, I'm just saying that's what the Jews got the rap for.

That explains it all. You don't feel secure enough with your own abilities, you question your self-worth and so you grasp at straws, even ridiculous ones like these:
You: "I'm special because I'm German."
Others: "Germans aren't special. They're just people like everyone else."
You: "Ahem....oh, yes, of course. But I'm not really German you see, I'm Allemannic!"

Oh please. Us Alemanni aren't even German. The two languages are mutually unintelligible. But someone insists on grouping us together.

Oh please. Us Alemanni aren't even German. The two languages are mutually unintelligible. But someone insists on grouping us together.

It's a simple German dialect. Same as Platt, any Bavarian dialect, Fraenkisch, and many, many more. It's nothing out of the ordinary, and it is a variety of German like all the others.

It's a simple German dialect. Same as Platt, any Bavarian dialect, Fraenkisch, and many, many more. It's nothing out of the ordinary, and it is a variety of German like all the others.

Nope. It's too far removed to be German. Look it up.

Nope. It's too far removed to be German. Look it up.

I don't need to. I have friends who speak it :rolleyes:

I don't need to. I have friends who speak it :rolleyes:

Then you should know how different it is from standard German. The same way Portuguese is not a dialect of Spanish.

Then you should know how different it is from standard German. The same way Portuguese is not a dialect of Spanish.

"Standard German" is a language that is natively spoken only in a very small area in Niedersachsen.
ALL the rest of Germany, Austria and the German speaking parts of Switzerland speak a huge variety of different dialects, in different regional shades. I grew up speaking two of them, and I understand about 5. Plus standard German.

I studied different German dialects for some time now, both at university and as a hobby. While there is a great rift in the origins and therefore current versions of Northern and Southern German dialects, Alemannic is nothing more than a variant of the Southern dialects.

"Standard German" is a language that is natively spoken only in a very small area in Niedersachsen.
ALL the rest of Germany, Austria and the German speaking parts of Switzerland speak a huge variety of different dialects, in different regional shades. I grew up speaking two of them, and I understand about 5. Plus standard German.

I studied different German dialects for some time now, both at university and as a hobby. While there is a great rift in the origins and therefore current versions of Northern and Southern German dialects, Alemannic is nothing more than a variant of the Southern dialects.

So the entire south speaks a different language. No matter. Still means we're not German.

So the entire south speaks a different language. No matter. Still means we're not German.

I am from the South, and I speak a German dialect. I have relatives in the far North (Lueneburg and Bremen) and they speak a different German dialect :rolleyes:

Edit : And you, my dear friend, are not German at all, if I remember correctly. You're Australian.

I say if they had the opportunity, Truman should have nuked berlin first. It may not have stopped the genocide, but it would be a quick resolution to the nazi problem.:sniper:

I am from the South, and I speak a German dialect. I have relatives in the far North (Lueneburg and Bremen) and they speak a different German dialect :rolleyes:

Edit : And you, my dear friend, are not German at all, if I remember correctly. You're Australian.

I don't believe in nationality. Only ethnicity. If you'd ever been to Australia, you'd know the only "Australians" are the descendents of the original white settlers. Nobody who comes here calls themselves "Australian".

I don't believe in nationality. Only ethnicity. If you'd ever been to Australia, you'd know the only "Australians" are the descendents of the original white settlers. Nobody who comes here calls themselves "Australian".

*shrugs

There's no such thing as a Germanic or Alemannic ethnicity. There's a German culture, of which the Alemannic culture is a colourful part. To belong to that, you need to have grown up in a certain area or live there now with close relations to the people.
And then there's a German nation. To belong to that, you need a German passport.
Take your pick.

*shrugs

There's no such thing as a Germanic or Alemannic ethnicity. There's a German culture, of which the Alemannic culture is a colourful part. To belong to that, you need to have grown up in a certain area or live there now with close relations to the people.
And then there's a German nation. To belong to that, you need a German passport.
Take your pick.

I pick nothing. I am Alemannisch. We are a suppressed people, like the Chechens or the Kurds.

I cannot believe you are still on with this discussion! :eek:

I cannot believe you are still on with this discussion! :eek:

I can't help it... I just love to prove people wrong ;)

I pick nothing. I am Alemannisch. We are a suppressed people, like the Chechens or the Kurds.

You are? Who's suppressing you?

You are? Who's suppressing you?

The Germans, the Swiss, the French, the Austrians.

The Germans, the Swiss, the French, the Austrians.

*lol

You must have been out of touch with your ethnicity for a long time now...
The Alemann culture is the culture of the majority of Swiss, and neither in Germany nor in Austria are they oppressed in any way. There isn't even a movement to form their own county, as is the case with the Franconians for example.

*lol

You must have been out of touch with your ethnicity for a long time now...
The Alemann culture is the culture of the majority of Swiss, and neither in Germany nor in Austria are they oppressed in any way. There isn't even a movement to form their own county, as is the case with the Franconians for example.

That's because these governments use education to teach the Alemanni that they're part of those respective nations, when they should have a seperate homeland.

A slightly off the topic question here. Isn't Germany called Alemagne in French? :p

A slightly off the topic question here. Isn't Germany called Alemagne in French? :p

Yeah, they got the name from us. We were their neighbours before we were annexed into Germany.

That's because these governments use education to teach the Alemanni that they're part of those respective nations, when they should have a seperate homeland.

What for? Why should they have homelands if thay don't even want them?

And I'm not quite sure what is worse... your sense of history or your idea of nationality...

I say if they had the opportunity, Truman should have nuked berlin first. It may not have stopped the genocide, but it would be a quick resolution to the nazi problem.:sniper:
The atomic bomb was ready for use AFTER VE-Day, so the allies couldn't have bombed germany anyway.

Kievan-Prussia, I looked for quite a while, and have found nothing to suggest "your" people are oppressed. Also, that is a seperate issue and is dragging this thread OT.