NationStates Jolt Archive

Sigh....When are these Bush-Hitler comparison gonna stop.
Do some reading on Godwin's Law (reducto ad Hitlerium).

Sigh....When are these Bush-Hitler comparison gonna stop.

When Bush is erased from memory?

Or you might just convince her to hurry it up :p


Yeah, well it's not as if they're out there to make friends. ;)

Haha...too true.

When Bush is erased from memory?

Do you honestly think Bush is that much worse than Hitler that you couldnt have just said...when Hitler is erased from memory?

Do some reading on Godwin's Law (reducto ad Hitlerium).

Yeah I know...I looked it up like the other day.

Do you honestly think Bush is that much worse than Hitler that you couldnt have just said...when Hitler is erased from memory?

No, it's just much easier to erase Bush from memory since he will have never had such an impact on the course of human history, as compared to Hitler. I for one, do not compare the two because it would be impossible and incorrect to do so [I feel the same way comparing Hussein to Hitler, as well - I think that was rather ignorant of Bush and the media].

No, it's just much easier to erase Bush from memory since he will have never had such an impact on the course of human history, as compared to Hitler. I for one, do not compare the two because it would be impossible and incorrect to do so [I feel the same way comparing Hussein to Hitler, as well - I think that was rather ignorant of Bush and the media].

I dont think its even legal to put Bush and the Media in the same sentance.

Actually, the average person thinks that Soviet Russia's greatest crime was looking scary. Everybody is forgetting about Russia.

And the turks killed the Armenians, not the Russians.

Stalin was 4x worse then the Germans for the holocaust. >.>

I dont think its even legal to put Bush and the Media in the same sentance.


Media = Fox News. :P

*shudders at the thought of whatching Fox News....and that coming from someone who considers themselves politically right wing, albeit with left wing and perhaps even socialist social tendencies*

Media = Fox News. :P

*shudders at the thought of whatching Fox News....and that coming from someone who considers themselves politically right wing, albeit with left wing and perhaps even socialist social tendencies*

Uh..last time I checked Fox News was ONE news station...which doesnt even come close to balancing out the other liberal propaganda spewing, communist sypathizing, fetus eating, tree hugging stations.

Uh..last time I checked Fox News was ONE news station...which doesnt even come close to balancing out the other liberal propaganda spewing, communist sypathizing, fetus eating, tree hugging stations.


Yes, but Fox News was not the only news station that drew comparisons between Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler. There's no doubt that Hussein was a murderer, but to compare him with Hitler was absolutely ugly - it would be more accurate to compare Pol Pot to Hitler, and that would still be incorrect.

Duh...why do you think Hitler called himself, Der Fuhrer.."the leader"...it all goes back to reliving the Germanic tribal days....going back to finding out what it means to be German. Thats why they had all those boy scout camping trips out in the wildnerss...and I'm pretty sure thats where the idea for the boy scouts came from.

Speaking as an Eagle Scout, I can tell you that the Boy Scouts started in the UK, in 1907; That was before WW I, and in a completely different country which is free from Germanic nationalism! Saying that the Hitler Youth led to the Boy Scouts is a pretty uneducated thing to say; I'm disappointed in you, Atlantian islands.:eek:

I will admit, however, that the Boy Scout and Hitler Youth uniforms do look eerily similar...

Boy Scout: http://www.elreno.k12.ok.us/hc/horn/boy%20scout%20picture1.jpg
Hitler Youth: http://www.ejpress.org/UserImages/00000195.jpg

There's not that many variations of biege you can use on a uniform that centers around short shorts. :P

Speaking as an Eagle Scout, I can tell you that the Boy Scouts started in the UK, in 1907; That was before WW I, and in a completely different country which is free from Germanic nationalism! Saying that the Hitler Youth led to the Boy Scouts is a pretty uneducated thing to say; I'm disappointed in you, Atlantian islands.:eek:

I will admit, however, that the Boy Scout and Hitler Youth uniforms do look eerily similar...

Boy Scout: http://www.elreno.k12.ok.us/hc/horn/boy%20scout%20picture1.jpg
Hitler Youth: http://www.ejpress.org/UserImages/00000195.jpg

Hey..I said I was pretty sure...not positive..I was never a boy scout.

Although I was right about the main point of my post. Germany was really getting into that...with the whole getting back to being Germanic and camping out and shit.

Just messed up on the boy scouts.

Sorrrrrry :p

Speaking as an Eagle Scout, I can tell you that the Boy Scouts started in the UK, in 1907; That was before WW I, and in a completely different country which is free from Germanic nationalism! Saying that the Hitler Youth led to the Boy Scouts is a pretty uneducated thing to say; I'm disappointed in you, Atlantian islands.:eek:

I will admit, however, that the Boy Scout and Hitler Youth uniforms do look eerily similar...

Boy Scout: http://www.elreno.k12.ok.us/hc/horn/boy%20scout%20picture1.jpg
Hitler Youth: http://www.ejpress.org/UserImages/00000195.jpg
Oh please, the idea of the Hitlerjugend and Maedchen wasn't that far off from the Scouts. They are by no means implicated, but the similiarities are there.

Hey..I said I was pretty sure...not positive..I was never a boy scout.
Lucky for you. They suck big time! :p

People should not compare Saddam with Hitler. Rather, they should compare Saddam with his idol, Josef Stalin.

Oh please, the idea of the Hitlerjugend and Maedchen wasn't that far off from the Scouts. They are by no means implicated, but the similiarities are there.
I'll give you that, Europa Maxima, it's just that I don't want to say that I graduated from an organization (which includes Jewish members) that is spun off the Hitler Youth.


Just messed up on the boy scouts.

Sorrrrrry :p
Thanks, Atlantian islands, apology accepted. :)

Stalin was 4x worse then the Germans for the holocaust. >.>

I'd have to agree, although not on the same scale.

Like I always say, at least Hitler was a stark raving, drug taking lunatic. Stalin was just an evil jerk.

They suck!:p

l:D

I'll give you that, Europa Maxima, it's just that I don't want to say that I graduated from an organization (which includes Jewish members) that is spun off the Hitler Youth.



Thanks, Atlantian islands, apology accepted. :)

But it doenst matter....Would you deny driving on the Autobahn...simply becuase it was built by Nazis?

Would you deny attending the soccer match in Berlin...because its gonna be in that superdome built by Nazis.

That Nazis were still humans...and as humans they did some good and some bad.

Only thing is they did ALOT of bad and a little good...but there is still some good in just about everyone.

Lucky for you. They suck big time! :p

Ouch.:p

I'd have to agree, although not on the same scale.

Like I always say, at least Hitler was a stark raving, drug taking lunatic. Stalin was just an evil jerk.
Not to mention that Hitler industrialised the killings...but yeah, Stalin is by no means any better.

But it doenst matter....Would you deny driving on the Autobahn...simply becuase it was built by Nazis?

Would you deny attending the soccer match in Berlin...because its gonna be in that superdome built by Nazis.

That Nazis were still humans...and as humans they did some good and some bad.

Only thing is they did ALOT of bad and a little good...but there is still some good in just about everyone.

If it weren't for the whole holocaust, war, and oppression, Hitler did a whole ton of good for Germany. Probably built it up faster than Bismarck. Too bad all of his hard work was leveled when the Allies invaded.

If it weren't for the whole holocaust, war, and oppression, Hitler did a whole ton of good for Germany. Probably built it up faster than Bismarck. Too bad all of his hard work was leveled when the Allies invaded.
They asked for it in the end, but yeah it is a shame.

If it weren't for the whole holocaust, war, and oppression, Hitler did a whole ton of good for Germany. Probably built it up faster than Bismarck. Too bad all of his hard work was leveled when the Allies invaded.

Autobahn and that big stadium in Berlin I was talking about are still there.

Autobahn and that big stadium in Berlin I was talking about are still there.

*Almost* all of it was leveled when the Allies invaded. Happy?

If it weren't for the whole holocaust, war, and oppression, Hitler did a whole ton of good for Germany.

give me one thing. don't tell me he fed the poor, because by '42 it was gone.
not flaming, i really want to know.

Probably built it up faster than Bismarck.

no. hitler had a completely unified germany to work with and already establihed industry. bismarck built ground up, country and economy

Too bad all of his hard work was leveled when the Allies invaded.

rocket planes, yes. concentration camps, no.

relates to first question. what was so good that was leveled?

relates to first question. what was so good that was leveled?

Uhh... everyone's houses?

Uhh... everyone's houses?

other than the semi-innocent population. . .

what good works were destroyed?

other than the semi-innocent population. . .
Innocent and semi-innocent.

other than the semi-innocent population. . .

what good works were destroyed?

Koenigsberg castle.

give me one thing. don't tell me he fed the poor, because by '42 it was gone.
Well, I was more getting at the economy, which he relieved pressure on in order to repair the damage done after WW I. Seconly, he gave the German people hope, hope that they could become a major power again.

no. hitler had a completely unified germany to work with and already establihed industry. bismarck built ground up, country and economy
Germany was hugely divided, (politically, not physically) and the economy was in shambles after World War One. The Allied Powers demanded reparations from Germany that forced the German government to overtax their people, keeping the economy from rising from the ashes. You can read about the Treaty of Versailles here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles#Reparations_and_the_War_Guilt_Clause

rocket planes, yes. concentration camps, no.
Well, I'll let you know the day I see concentration camps as a "whole ton of good" that wasn't part of the "holocaust, war, or oppression". ;)

Innocent and semi-innocent.

of course.

please please please dont elaborate!!!

of course.

please please please dont elaborate!!!

Well too bad, I will anyway. My family comes from southern Baden, an area of strong anti-Nazi resistance (well, that's what I've read), and we had some family members that we had to shut up so they didn't get us all killed.

Well, I was more getting at the economy, which he relieved pressure on in order to repair the damage done after WW I. Seconly, he gave the German people hope, hope that they could become a major power again.

ok. maybe. but it was a war-producing economy. one that eventually collapsed under overuse.

Germany was hugely divided, (politically, not physically) and the economy was in shambles after World War One. The Allied Powers demanded reparations from Germany that forced the German government to overtax their people, keeping the economy from rising from the ashes. You can read about the Treaty of Versailles here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles#Reparations_and_the_War_Guilt_Clause

i am insulted that you would recommend i read wikipedia on something i already know much about.
nah, only a little ;)

eh, similar problems, different times.

Well, I'll let you know the day I see concentration camps as a "whole ton of good" that wasn't part of the "holocaust, war, or oppression". ;)

alright, slipped. please give me an example of a whole ton of good.

Well too bad, I will anyway. My family comes from southern Baden, an area of strong anti-Nazi resistance (well, that's what I've read), and we had some family members that we had to shut up so they didn't get us all killed.

sorry, i just cant argue anything on that topic without walking myself into a corner and building a brick wall around myself.

maybe if my family had stayed after 1899, i could respond with something similar. . . .

i am insulted that you would recommend i read wikipedia on something i already know much about.
nah, only a little ;)...

...alright, slipped. please give me an example of a whole ton of good.
Don't worry, the Wikipedia link is only so those pesky, uninformed radicals don't start flaming at me and saying that I'm making up evidence in the defense of Hitler.

Speaking of which, I guess you're right, "a whole ton of good" might be an overstatement. :rolleyes: I'm not going to bother continuing to argue what good Nazi Germany did, because they didn't do that much good, and arguing on the side of Adolf Hitler is a position I'd rather not be in. ;)

They did host the 1936 Olympics, though. :p

Don't worry, the Wikipedia link is only so those pesky, uninformed radicals don't start flaming at me and saying that I'm making up evidence in the defense of Hitler.

Speaking of which, I guess you're right, "a whole ton of good" might be an overstatement. :rolleyes: I'm not going to bother continuing to argue what good Nazi Germany did, because they didn't do that much good, and arguing on the side of Adolf Hitler is a position I'd rather not be in. ;)

They did host the 1936 Olympics, though. :p

1. thanks. clarified that.

2. not an easy position

3. screwed the world cup though '38-'50 was a long time! :D

You know, Fleckenstein, we're getting along pretty well considering the 13.38 point difference in our economic views.

The holocaust happened because:
-Hitler came into power and soon, absolute power.
-Hitler's hatred for Jews after World War I through propaganda ended fuled his conquest
-Hitler convinces 1/10 of Germany that Jews need to be irradicated
-Hitler creates the final solution, gg, nr, omg.

The holocaust happened because:
-Hitler came into power and soon, absolute power.
-Hitler's hatred for Jews after World War I through propaganda ended fuled his conquest
-Hitler convinces 1/10 of Germany that Jews need to be irradicated
-Hitler creares the final solution, gg, nr, omg.
I think the question was more about why and how the Germans could be convinced...

bump.

If it weren't for the whole holocaust, war, and oppression, Hitler did a whole ton of good for Germany. Probably built it up faster than Bismarck. Too bad all of his hard work was leveled when the Allies invaded.Thank goodness Speer didn't obey Hitler's orders to dismantle what the Allies didn't level.

Stalin was 4x worse then the Germans for the holocaust. >.>
In numbers, maybe. But numbers are not what make the Holocaust what it is - the way it was done is.

Well too bad, I will anyway. My family comes from southern Baden, an area of strong anti-Nazi resistance (well, that's what I've read), and we had some family members that we had to shut up so they didn't get us all killed.
Every area had strong anti-Nazi resistance, if you believe the old people. Doesn't mean it's true.

Thank goodness Speer didn't obey Hitler's orders to dismantle what the Allies didn't level.
Exactly.

All those "Hitler built up Germany and gave them hope!"-ideas are crap. Hitler didn't care about giving anyone hope. For him it was simply a struggle of ethnic groups, and when the Germans 'failed', he wanted them to be destroyed and wiped out from history. He was not a good guy at any point in time, and what he did for Germany (not that he did it - his cronies were the ones with the ideas) was not done in an intention we would call 'good' by any standard.

As for Argesia's thesis...hmm, many a big word, and after an eight hour shift delivering pizzas I'm not up for it right now. Sounds about right, I suppose just from skimming over it.

Every area had strong anti-Nazi resistance, if you believe the old people. Doesn't mean it's true.There's a lot of Germans that say they hid Jews from the Nazis. They hid them so well, in fact, that a lot of them haven't been found to this day... :p

There's a lot of Germans that say they hid Jews from the Nazis. They hid them so well, in fact, that a lot of them haven't been found to this day... :p
My grandmother's dad apparently got in trouble with the police in the last weeks of the war.
But not for anything heroic - apparently he was caught stealing food. He was good at that, my grandma says. Helped them through those years by 'organising' things. :p

My grandmother's dad apparently got in trouble with the police in the last weeks of the war.
But not for anything heroic - apparently he was caught stealing food. He was good at that, my grandma says. Helped them through those years by 'organising' things. :pOne of my great-granddad's brothers was put into a concentration camp for being a homosexual communist. My great-granddad managed to dodge the military service, though. Him being a tailor helped a lot when the Soviets marched in.

As for Argesia's thesis...hmm, many a big word, and after an eight hour shift delivering pizzas I'm not up for it right now. Sounds about right, I suppose just from skimming over it.
That's only fair, since I couldn't have written it without spending eight ours eating candy and watching tv - kidding.
Thanks, dude.

I'll go with 2 - with a bit of 1 thrown in there (which is not to say "the Germans as a people did it").
My initial observation is that the Holocaust had Germany as a catalysis: it has immense contributions from Hungary, Croatia, Vichy France, Romania, the Salo Republic, Latvia etc (excluding places where Germany was actually in charge - Denmark, Belgium, etc - but perhaps pointing out "contribution" of some Poles, Russians, Ukrainians,...).
I also want to point out that picking option 1 would have another flaw: the Holocaust was not just anti-semitism, it was anti-"others" (with Jews first and foremost, of course).
Now, my thesis: Volkisch nationalism implies collective responsability, as well as Herder's "geist". Any judgement passed through such "logic" would find atavic enemies, especially after the contribution of Fascism and its rhetoric of "oneness" (as violent as Fascism may be on its own, I think that Hitler and movements such as the Iron Guard or the Arrow Crosses made use of something which they had essential, but little things in common with: left on on its own, Mussolini's Fascism, Integralism, or Falangism etc. would have developped in reaction to Volkish, as the syncretical and revolutionary movement they were - I think that anti-semitism and ethnicity would have tended to clash with the "integralist" and "über-state worship" drive of Fascisms).
This would have to be indeed an ancestral phenomenon, the violent fulfilment of what Bismarck left unanswered in Germany, or the latter stage of various jingoisms in other places. Nationalism in Western Europe was meant to address über-patriotism (ie: an identity forged through an entity that was already in place - the state; the most conservative force in France prior to the 1940 defeat would understand that France is more "of the French citizens" than "of the French ethnos"). The translation of nationalism in Central and Eastern Europe meant searching for ethnicity to become state, with all the faults implied. In fact, the effect this had was that most "would-be-state" identities (Germanism, Romanianness, Yugoslavian ethos as well as Croatian identity, Ukrainianness etc etc) has triggered reactions in identities already in place (France-Vichy France, Hungary etc), forcing them to adopt the ethnic nationalism. Of course, the "they say jump you say how high" that happened with German dominance in 1941 did play a crucial part in bringing that about, but my bet is that the reaction of ethnos against state (with the Jews as the perfect, cosmopolitan, and would-be-citizen vs are-of-the-same-race enemies) would have led half of Europe near the same watershed.

Of course, option 1 remains there only in the measure where we take into account the fact that the notion of "collective responsability" and "ethos for the ethnos" did in fact create a measure of "collective responsability" and "ethos for the ethnos".

Tell me if this is a good explanation.
What the heck? Does anyone know what hes saying here?? Can someone dumb it down, with easy to understand logical progressions? What did Bismarck leave unanswered for Germany? How does "judgment" of "Volkisch nationalism" "passed through the logic of Herder's geist" find "atavic enemies"??

What the heck? Does anyone know what hes saying here?? Can someone dumb it down, with easy to understand logical progressions? What did Bismarck leave unanswered for Germany? How does "judgment" of "Volkisch nationalism" "passed through the logic of Herder's geist" find "atavic enemies"??
Hehe, don't worry. He likes to use big words, even when they're not fully necessary to make this particular point. :p

I'll have a go at translating, but remember that I'm tired, and not perfectly well educated in the details either.
Hope it helps. :)

I'll go with 2 - with a bit of 1 thrown in there (which is not to say "the Germans as a people did it").
My initial observation is that the Holocaust had Germany as a catalysis: it has immense contributions from Hungary, Croatia, Vichy France, Romania, the Salo Republic, Latvia etc (excluding places where Germany was actually in charge - Denmark, Belgium, etc - but perhaps pointing out "contribution" of some Poles, Russians, Ukrainians,...).
Clear so far. Germany was the pushing force, but the rest of Europe was riding on the same sort of wave.

Now, my thesis: Volkisch nationalism implies collective responsability, as well as Herder's "geist".
"Volkish" here being the idea of some sort of national spirit in a peculiar way. "Volk" means "people" in German, and "Volkish Nationalism" was something that developed through the romantic era in the German lands as a way for nationalists to devote themselves completely to an ideal.
That idea was the sort of common national spirit of all German people. "Geist" means "Spirit" in German, and in this sense is a discription of that national spirit.
Obviously, if you believe that Germany is a sort of single entity/single organism/single spirit that Germans just sorta belong to, then collective responsibility is obvious.

The idea isn't completely dead, by the way. In many a German newspaper you can still see hints of it around when there is talk about the Federal Republic. Usually through the idea of collective responsibility for Nazism.

Any judgement passed through such "logic" would find atavic enemies, especially after the contribution of Fascism and its rhetoric of "oneness"
"Atavic" (I think he might mean "atavistic", he's Romanian, English is his second language) here means something of a primitive offspring/throwback of Nazism.
He is talking about the fact that fascism in itself talks about one-ness with the state, about different people from different races together devoting themselves to one state.
That is of course against Nazism, in which racial purity is desired, even if that means getting rid of quite loyal citizens and nationalists.

(as violent as Fascism may be on its own, I think that Hitler and movements such as the Iron Guard or the Arrow Crosses made use of something which they had essential, but little things in common with: left on on its own, Mussolini's Fascism, Integralism, or Falangism etc. would have developped in reaction to Volkish, as the syncretical and revolutionary movement they were - I think that anti-semitism and ethnicity would have tended to clash with the "integralist" and "über-state worship" drive of Fascisms).
Here he talks about the fact that fascism could have (and probably would have) developed quite differently, had it not been for Nazism becoming so powerful in Germany. Hitler's power ultimately perverted the other fascist nations into Nazi-helper states, with all that comes with that.

This would have to be indeed an ancestral phenomenon, the violent fulfilment of what Bismarck left unanswered in Germany, or the latter stage of various jingoisms in other places.
Yes, Bismarck managed to create a Germany - but the driving force behind that Nationalism was still there. The idea of a national destiny, a people destined to do great things remained, and ultimately had to find its expression in German antagonism to the other countries and peoples.
Wilhelm II's "place in the sun" would be an example.

Nationalism in Western Europe was meant to address über-patriotism (ie: an identity forged through an entity that was already in place - the state; the most conservative force in France prior to the 1940 defeat would understand that France is more "of the French citizens" than "of the French ethnos").
Ie nationalism in Britain or France developed after the nation was already in place. While in Germany the common connection was ethnicity and language, in Britain and France that connection was a common government and adherance to it.
That obviously means that British or French people would have been much less likely to respond to ideologies and propaganda based on race and ethnicity.

The translation of nationalism in Central and Eastern Europe meant searching for ethnicity to become state, with all the faults implied. In fact, the effect this had was that most "would-be-state" identities (Germanism, Romanianness, Yugoslavian ethos as well as Croatian identity, Ukrainianness etc etc) has triggered reactions in identities already in place (France-Vichy France, Hungary etc), forcing them to adopt the ethnic nationalism.
In other words, the only way an established country which contains groups that feel an ethnic nationalism to remain stable is for the government to begin pushing ethnic nationalism as well. For example, Austro-Hungarian leaders during WWI were at times quite happy to talk about German destinies on one hand, about Hungarian on the other - allthewhile presenting the KuK government as the way to realise these destinies.

Of course, the "they say jump you say how high" that happened with German dominance in 1941 did play a crucial part in bringing that about, but my bet is that the reaction of ethnos against state (with the Jews as the perfect, cosmopolitan, and would-be-citizen vs are-of-the-same-race enemies) would have led half of Europe near the same watershed.
So Argesia's point is that while there was a degree of other countries simply following German commands during the Holocaust, the ethnic nationalism that had spread throughout much of Central and Eastern Europe could have lead to similar disasters in those countries as well, regardless of what happened in Germany.

Of course, option 1 remains there only in the measure where we take into account the fact that the notion of "collective responsability" and "ethos for the ethnos" did in fact create a measure of "collective responsability" and "ethos for the ethnos".
And he posits that the only reason there is a collective responsibility now is because it was the reason for why it happened then.

Tell me if this is a good explanation.
I think it is pretty close - once it is deciphered. :p

I say, thanks for the translation. That's actually an excellent point, especially about how it could have happened in a lot of other European countries - there's enough evidence in France and even England to show that it might have happened.

Argesia and Neu Leonstein get a cookie each for doing some excellent historical debating:

*Hands cookies out*

...there's enough evidence in France and even England to show that it might have happened.
But the problem with that is that for the national destiny to contain things that are explicitly pro one race and anti another, there needs to be a racial character to one's nationalism.

I don't think that ever happened in either Britain or France. Their nationalism was all about their Republic in France and their Empire in Britain. And in principle, that means that whether you're Indian or Morroccan or Jewish, as long as you follow the government, you'll be right.

People were talking about a "German race", but I don't think anyone ever talked about a "French race".

But the problem with that is that for the national destiny to contain things that are explicitly pro one race and anti another, there needs to be a racial character to one's nationalism.

I don't think that ever happened in either Britain or France. Their nationalism was all about their Republic in France and their Empire in Britain. And in principle, that means that whether you're Indian or Morroccan or Jewish, as long as you follow the government, you'll be right.

People were talking about a "German race", but I don't think anyone ever talked about a "French race".

Hmmm...yes, I see what you mean. Although there was strong anti-semitism in France of course, more so than in Britain. The Dreyfus affair and the Jewish Minister who was called to be sacked for being a Jew (My books are home for the holiday, so I can't remember who that was), and France was certainly more divided during the early 20th Century and might well have been led into the same sort of thing that the Germans were by Hitler.

But are you suggesting, therefore, that the sort of thing that happened in Germany could only have happened in Germany and further east? I genuinely wonder, not flaming or such.

Ooooh I like Neu Leonstein and Argesias statements. An awesome thesis and great translation. Cookies for all indeed!

But the problem with that is that for the national destiny to contain things that are explicitly pro one race and anti another, there needs to be a racial character to one's nationalism.

I don't think that ever happened in either Britain or France. Their nationalism was all about their Republic in France and their Empire in Britain. And in principle, that means that whether you're Indian or Morroccan or Jewish, as long as you follow the government, you'll be right.

People were talking about a "German race", but I don't think anyone ever talked about a "French race".

Now that I can understand and appreciate your staements - To compound on that particular point, I think it is quite poignant and relevant that the only people who discussed a "French race" were the Germans, in the context of expressing contempt at the French being a "weak" race for having a lower birth rate throughout the 19th century in contrast to Germany's demographic explosion. In retrospect another signpost for the German nationstate's unfortunate development into the rabid tribal self-identity during WWII!

What the heck? Does anyone know what hes saying here?? Can someone dumb it down, with easy to understand logical progressions? What did Bismarck leave unanswered for Germany? How does "judgment" of "Volkisch nationalism" "passed through the logic of Herder's geist" find "atavic enemies"??
A minor point, before I answer you in detail: I was being quite selfish with my initial response, because the op and other people on the thread are German (and I thought it pointless to go into detail with things I assumed they already knew only too well), and I also had explained such details of my views in a thread about German identity which I started back in October (one in which I had a long dialogue with Leonstein).
How does "judgment" of "Volkisch nationalism" "passed through the logic of Herder's geist" find "atavic enemies"? - Herder introduced "race" and "blood" to nationalism, amending the proto-nationalism of Western Europe. Arguably, national identity was tied to the state up to then, and Germany was no state. To justify the "need" for a state, people like Herder added "Volkgeist", the immediate consequences of which were "collective aim" and "collective responsability", which is where modern anti-semitism (i.e.: racial, not Bible-based) found a cosy home. At the same time, the main accusation addressed to the Jews became their "cosmopolitan nation" - the Jews as an identity irreconcilable with a Volkish ideal, since the proper citizen of a state thus created would have to share blood, and not mere identity papers. For a comparison, note that the French Revolution, which was credited with creating a national identity around the existing state (not "race", not "people", not "would-be Empire"), was also the first regime ever to award full integration to Jews (and making them indistinguishable from other French).
What did Bismarck leave unanswered for Germany? - Volkisch nationalism would imply a mandatory union of all those "of German blood". Bismarck not only amended the core vision by rejecting a takeover of Austria (or, rather, of the "German" lands in the Habsburg Empire) - which was nonetheless an objective of non-Prussian versions of German unification, he also tied the German identity to Prussia and Protestantism, against "potential Germans", through the mighty Kulturkampf.

I notice I was typing my reply while being translated (again, sorry for my half-pretentious-half-incompetent English).
Thank you, Leonstein. Thank you for the cookies, Skinny87 and Trilateral Commission.

Hmmm...yes, I see what you mean. Although there was strong anti-semitism in France of course, more so than in Britain. The Dreyfus affair and the Jewish Minister who was called to be sacked for being a Jew (My books are home for the holiday, so I can't remember who that was), and France was certainly more divided during the early 20th Century and might well have been led into the same sort of thing that the Germans were by Hitler.

Anti-semitism in France was indeed widespread, but was mainly linked to the jingoistic conservatism of groups such as the Action Francaise. My view is that the far right in France, all the way to Vichy, was linked to the "monarchical France" of Christian identity. In its latter stage, it did find common ground with Nazism (mainly because it was forced to by post-1940 circumstance), but it was never racist per se - more "biblical" anti-semitic than anything. Roughly the same in Britain, although some Brits, such as Cecil Rhodes, were theorists of textbook racism (and so was the Frenchman Gobineau).

But are you suggesting, therefore, that the sort of thing that happened in Germany could only have happened in Germany and further east? I genuinely wonder, not flaming or such.

Given the initial stages of ethnic nationalism, it is so (although, not everywhere further East - not in Bulgaria, for example). In my first post, I also mentioned that my country had a Holocaust of its own, brought about by following the same path (Romania had its very own extermination camps for Jews and Roma on the Dnestr).

Now that I can understand and appreciate your staements - To compound on that particular point, I think it is quite poignant and relevant that the only people who discussed a "French race" were the Germans, in the context of expressing contempt at the French being a "weak" race for having a lower birth rate throughout the 19th century in contrast to Germany's demographic explosion. In retrospect another signpost for the German nationstate's unfortunate development into the rabid tribal self-identity during WWII!
Precisely.

But the problem with that is that for the national destiny to contain things that are explicitly pro one race and anti another, there needs to be a racial character to one's nationalism.

I don't think that ever happened in either Britain or France. Their nationalism was all about their Republic in France and their Empire in Britain. And in principle, that means that whether you're Indian or Morroccan or Jewish, as long as you follow the government, you'll be right.

People were talking about a "German race", but I don't think anyone ever talked about a "French race".
Britain wasn't a racialist? It was. Books on the Empire mention the significance of race within it. For instance, one General in the Boer Wars (of German extraction, though he was effectively British), called himself a race patriot when fighting off the Afrikaaners. The ironic thing is that they were also white and they came from the same ethnic group as both the British and the Germans (Germanic). Britain was by no means as racist as Germany, but it definitely had its own ideas on the matter. You are right in stating that it was tolerant of anyone who belonged to the Empire, yet that did not eliminate the issue of race.

Given the initial stages of ethnic nationalism, it is so (although, not everywhere further East - not in Bulgaria, for example). In my first post, I also mentioned that my country had a Holocaust of its own, brought about by following the same path (Romania had its very own extermination camps for Jews and Roma on the Dnestr).That's an interesting thing about Bulgaria. It managed to protect its jewish citizens from the Nazis, but the NS region "Bulgaria" populated by Bulgarians is a Nazi/White Power run region.

But the problem with that is that for the national destiny to contain things that are explicitly pro one race and anti another, there needs to be a racial character to one's nationalism.

I don't think that ever happened in either Britain or France. Their nationalism was all about their Republic in France and their Empire in Britain. And in principle, that means that whether you're Indian or Morroccan or Jewish, as long as you follow the government, you'll be right.

People were talking about a "German race", but I don't think anyone ever talked about a "French race".
I´m starting to suspect you are one of the typical selfloathing Germans who curse everyday that they were born German.
http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/Anglo_Saxonism.html

That's an interesting thing about Bulgaria. It managed to protect its jewish citizens from the Nazis, but the NS region "Bulgaria" populated by Bulgarians is a Nazi/White Power run region.
Well, yeah, a percentage of people everywhere are stupid. But I can point out an essential difference in approaches: in Romania, most conservative, non-skinhead people are Holocaust deniers of some sort. At least, they deny Romania's own Holocaust - it was only officialy recognized in 2000. Of those that do recognize it on principle, a large number attempt to whitewash it: not only do they argue that numbers are low, they also use the grotesque statement that Jews had previously attacked the Romanian Army as it was forced by the Soviets to retreat from Bessarabia (as a consequence the Soviet-German pact). Not only is this not true, but note the "collective responsability" issue again - it's never at least "some Jews", and it is fused with the stupid statement that Jews are the "natural allies of the bolsheviks" (including children and rabbies, apparently).

I´m starting to suspect you are one of the typical selfloathing Germans who curse everyday that they were born German.
http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/Anglo_Saxonism.html
I have already shown to him, why by the definition of a state, it is not even logically possible for him to carry any guilt. It is one thing to remember the Holocaust, and another thing to hold present-day Germans culpable.

I have already shown to him, why by the definition of a state, it is not even logically possible for him to carry any guilt. It is one thing to remember the Holocaust, and another thing to hold present-day Germans culpable.And what makes you think an emotion like guilt falls under the laws of logic? :rolleyes:

Britain wasn't a racialist? It was. Books on the Empire mention the significance of race within it. For instance, one General in the Boer Wars (of German extraction, though he was effectively British), called himself a race patriot when fighting off the Afrikaaners. The ironic thing is that they were also white and they came from the same ethnic group as both the British and the Germans (Germanic). Britain was by no means as racist as Germany, but it definitely had its own ideas on the matter. You are right in stating that it was tolerant of anyone who belonged to the Empire, yet that did not eliminate the issue of race.
I think Britain was more about a "hierarchy" of races, rather than a "conflict" - meaning that races were expected to "know their place". Also, this view was aimed at the exterior (or the "relative exterior" of the Empire), and never was the notion of a multi-religious superior white race replaced by anti-semitism. Germanism was just a sign of cultural superiority; it was also never official dogma, and was largely ruined by the Anglo-Boer Wars, WWI, and then, in its last timid stage, by Mosley's incompetence.
The basic point is that, no matter how close to Volkisch Britain and France were, the core identity was always plural.

And what makes you think an emotion like guilt falls under the laws of logic? :rolleyes:
He is a fairly rational individual, so I appeal to his logic. I am an Afrikaaner myself, and I refuse to feel guilty for what my ancestors did to the blacks, because I had no part of it. I strongly disapprove of Appartheid, but it is by no means my fault, or that of anyone who did not aid it. In some cases, logic should step in to abate unjustified emotional burdens.

I think Britain was more about a "hierarchy" of races, rather than a "conflict" - meaning that races were expected to "know their place". Also, this view was aimed at the exterior (or the "relative exterior" of the Empire), and never was the notion of a multi-religious superior white race replaced by anti-semitism. Germanism was just a sign of cultural superiority; it was also never official dogma, and was largely ruined by the Anglo-Boer Wars, WWI, and then, in its last timid stage, by Mosley's incompetence.
The basic point is that, no matter how close to Volkisch Britain and France were, the core identity was always plural.
Indeed. I was challenging the view that Britain was completely exempt of racism (or rather, racialism).

I think Britain was more about a "hierarchy" of races, rather than a "conflict" - meaning that races were expected to "know their place". Also, this view was aimed at the exterior (or the "relative exterior" of the Empire), and never was the notion of a multi-religious superior white race replaced by anti-semitism. Germanism was just a sign of cultural superiority; it was also never official dogma, and was largely ruined by the Anglo-Boer Wars, WWI, and then, in its last timid stage, by Mosley's incompetence.
The basic point is that, no matter how close to Volkisch Britain and France were, the core identity was always plural.
Well said. Britain was as in love with the profitable empire that it already had as the Germans were with the idea of Germanic grandeur. The island of bankers was easily, opportunistically (as the always racial-minded Germans would claim) open to reconciliation with France and Russia while Germany girded itself for a primal war with Slavdom.

Well said. Britain was as in love with the profitable empire that it already had as the Germans were with the idea of Germanic grandeur. The island of bankers was easily, opportunistically (as the always racial-minded Germans would claim) open to reconciliation with France and Russia while Germany girded itself for a primal war with Slavdom.
Aside from capitalist realpolitik, I also think that institutionalized Volkgeist was not necessary for an English/British/Imperial identity to be forged.

However true. They did use the Jews as a sub-race when they are also white....England and the other nations didn't have many Jews or used them as scapegoats.

I´m starting to suspect you are one of the typical selfloathing Germans who curse everyday that they were born German.
It might surprise you that I'm not. In fact, I quite like the place, even though I don't like the sort of surburbanite conservatism that everyone seems to share (but that's the same here in Oz).

But I never was, and never will be, a nationalist. And just like I don't understand the motivation or the need for a British nationalist, or a Chinese nationalist, or an American nationalist, I don't see why Germans should be any more nationalistic or patriotic than they are right now.
I don't see the need to excuse or justify the actions committed in Nazi Germany, simply because my passport happens to say that I'm German as well.

And like I said before, 'collective guilt' is not something I believe in or feel. However I do recognise that an evil was committed, and that that evil was ultimately committed by Germany as an entity. It would be too easy to blame individuals, when the reason these individuals were able to do what they did is open and for everyone to see - and everyday German citizens were a part of that.

So do I think that I as a German citizen have any special responsibility? No.
Do I think that the Federal Republic as national entity has some sort of responsibility? Yes. And indeed, much of that is also written in the constitution and accompanying documents.

Plus, I really can't stand Neo-Nazis of any type, and let's be realistic about it - most of the people who are talking about German pride and patriotism these days come from those quarters.

http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/Anglo_Saxonism.html
Yes, I see that that existed.

But ultimately it was a reaction to what was happening on the continent. England and the Empire already existed. Their nationalism was not based on ethnicity (can you find Anglo-Saxons outside the Empire?), but on their government and country, on politics.
Throughout the Rennaissance and Enlightenment though, German nationalists had only the idea of a German race/culture/spirit to connect them with Germans living in the Free Cities, or Württemberg, or Austria. And that's why the nationalism in Germany had a racial character.

NL,

Would Germany have taken the nazi path, if it had enjoyed the same colonial successes that Britain enjoyed?

NL,

Would Germany have taken the nazi path, if it had enjoyed the same colonial successes that Britain enjoyed?
Depends on when that would have been. If Germany had formed earlier, and developed along the same sort of lines Britain developed, probably not.

If for example Germany had become a bigger colonial power somehow after 1871, then perhaps, perhaps not.

The elements that later became Nazism had been around for some time, and simply developed because of the way Germany developed. So much has probably been established.

Nonetheless, I believe that there needed to be some shock that would bring these elements to the forefront, and get people to put them into action.

A Germany that would have gotten its place in the sun (just like Wilhelm had hoped) might have felt satisfied and content. People might have felt that the German people had realised their destiny, and existing authorities would also have cracked down on any Nazi-type groups a lot more.

But a WWI would have occured nonetheless, the existence of an ambitious Germany in itself would always have been a source of conflict. Bismarck knew that, and that is why his political plans for a unified Germany were so 'modest'.

So then it depends on whether Germany would have won or lost the conflict with the other colonial powers.

And even then, there is still this thesis (http://www.johnreilly.info/wwi.htm), which might have some merit. The trauma of the war itself, regardless who won, might have perverted public life enough to make ugly things happen.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I would think that the envy due to the colonial primacy enjoyed by England and France plus the misplaced nationalism (based on false constructs like the Aryan nonsense) contributed in significant ways.

It is ironical the way the Aryan theory (invented by British paid "historians" like Mueller to suit the British colonial agenda) came back to bite the British.....

NL,

Would Germany have taken the nazi path, if it had enjoyed the same colonial successes that Britain enjoyed?Unlikely, since the main reason there was no German Empire to begin with that could compete with Britain or France was because there was no Germany. France and Britain weren't split into a plethora of duchies, kingdoms, and states and didn't need to develop any form of "national identity über alles" as the Germans did in order to create their colonial empires.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I would think that the envy due to the colonial primacy enjoyed by England and France plus the misplaced nationalism (based on false constructs like the Aryan nonsense) contributed in significant ways.

It is ironical the way the Aryan theory (invented by British paid "historians" like Mueller to suit the British colonial agenda) came back to bite the British.....

I think the roots for German nationalism lie actually a bit deeper and first showed up in the revolution of 1848.
Germany's biggest problem, the reason why it couldn't become a colonial power like France and Britain, was the fact that for the largest part of it's history, it simply wasn't a nation. It was a more or less loose alliance of hundreds of small kingdoms, barronies, free cities, etc.
And the German population started to feel very strongly about this missing sense of nationality, especially after the French revolution and the Napoleonic conquests. They wanted to be one nation, and become a international player of the same size as France. However, it took until 1871 before Germany became a nation, and by that time, France and Britain where another step ahead again, using their colonies to further their industrial and economical development.

You can still occasionally get this feeling of being "left behind" when talking to Germans. One of the slogans of the post WW II era was "Wir sind wieder wer", roughly translates as "We're an international player again".

And even then, there is still this thesis (http://www.johnreilly.info/wwi.htm), which might have some merit. The trauma of the war itself, regardless who won, might have perverted public life enough to make ugly things happen.
I am somewhat unsure of this. I think it might have, like you said, caused something ugly to happen, but I doubt it would have ever reached the extent of the Holocaust. If the war was won, I think there would be too much focus on dealing with the spoils of victory and the consequences of it to start persecuting any particular group. Plus, people would be more likely to blame the Government itself, as they did with Weimar, than any specific social group for any misery they endured. Hatred for the Jews was there, but Hitler did much to manipulate it and twist it to actually get what he wanted, and even then his anti-semitic policies were the least favourite, as opposed to his anti-Marxist dogma, which found much support.

Unlikely, since the main reason there was no German Empire to begin with that could compete with Britain or France was because there was no Germany. France and Britain weren't split into a plethora of duchies, kingdoms, and states and didn't need to develop any form of "national identity über alles" as the Germans did in order to create their colonial empires.
What the hell are you talking about?

What the hell are you talking about?
The same thing we've been talking about for the past 20 posts or so. Get with the program.

Reading "Mein Kampf", I realised one thing that might explain a lot about Hitler though.

He lived in Austria, yet he considered himself German. He lived in exile, so to speak, forever ranting on about a government of foreigners and so on.

That is exactly the same thing that immigrants are experiencing everywhere. It's considered to be an important factor in explaining what drives people to extremism and terrorism. It's radicalised people throughout history.

Hell, even I have felt the sort of effects that come with being put into a foreign environment, and the changed perceptions that also brings of one's "real home".

Any thoughts?

What the hell are you talking about?G3RM4N H1$TORY

Reading "Mein Kampf", I realised one thing that might explain a lot about Hitler though.

He lived in Austria, yet he considered himself German. He lived in exile, so to speak, forever ranting on about a government of foreigners and so on.

That is exactly the same thing that immigrants are experiencing everywhere. It's considered to be an important factor in explaining what drives people to extremism and terrorism. It's radicalised people throughout history.

Hell, even I have felt the sort of effects that come with being put into a foreign environment, and the changed perceptions that also brings of one's "real home".

Any thoughts?

But was he really a foreigner, or was Austria widely perceived as an abomination? I mean, to my knowledge, after the two Empires had learned to live with each other, their border became way less important than the one between Cis- and Transleithania. Hitler was born in that very region, after all.
With WWI and such factors as the bullshit-artistry of the Hungarian gvt. (so it would look that they were actually victims of the war), Austria was Germany in all but name.
In fact, Hitler felt least at home in Vienna - mostly because of the overwhelming presence of "dubious" nationalities such as mine. He stated that was the place where he learned German nationalism and anti-semitism (and the Vienna mayor of the time -can't remember his name- was a good teacher).

You do have a point, I guess, in that it is likely an outsider wanting to fit it would absorbe the least nuanced form of the officially-encouraged identity (to bore you with my country again: Codreanu, the leader of our very own Volkisch fascist movement was half-Ukrainian, half-German). But I don't know if it is Hitler's case, and I don't think the feature itself is guaranteed with every purchase.
But let's see what you'll do in Australia...

But let's see what you'll do in Australia...
:D
We'll see...

after the two Empires had learned to live with each other, their border became way less important than the one between Cis- and Transleithania. Hitler was born in that very region, after all.

that's right; but if you were a German living in Austria in the beginning of the 20th century, you'd feel as foreign as an Englishman in New York; the culture is just different, although the language is the same
but I don't think Hitler felt like a foreigner as he made Austria just a part of the Greater German Reich when he came into power there

Would Germany have taken the nazi path, if it had enjoyed the same colonial successes that Britain enjoyed?

a long time, even Bismarck didn't want any colonies, so this doesn't deal anything with Hitler and the Nazis...

none of these above it was cuz the Nazi party way back wwhen it was only 6 members they wroght a book on all there views from the ultimate race to killing jews once they got in control then hitler found there party after he was cast out of the german army and hitler found out he was good a drawign a crowd and after ww1 the goverment was in such a pit and the nazi party grew so big hitler asked the goverment to sign him as dictator for 4years as during those 4 years germany was growing quickly and every one started liking him more all ignoring the fact about his book on what he wanted to do then cam a time when he allyed with russia and devided up poland and attacked them then hitler decided to take on france taking them over in a few weeks with blitzcreek attacks and then he waited a long time to attack great britan because he want the world to be just germany and britian while he missed the perfect time to attack he did en up attacking and dominated all of great britan while not attackingthe capitol to let them survive (so it would only be germany and great britian) then he dicided to betray russia and we waited 3 months to attack witch ended him in russian winter -just a brief summary of ww2 from my history book

Personally, given the amount of anti semitism rife in Europe that stretches back for millenia, I don't think there is any particularly exclusive reason for the Holocaust to have happened in Germany.

In France, shortly before the beginning of the 20th Century, anti-semitism was very much alive, with the example of 'The Dreyfus Affair' and the right wing newspaper campaign against Jews being the best examples of this.

The Pogroms in Russia stretch back for hundreds of years.

In England, the Cliffords Tower massarce at York in 1190 was just one of the many incidents where Jews had been killed for no other reasons than them simply being Jews. The thirteenth century saw continuing Papal legislation limiting the rights of Jews, cross-marriage and even cross-contact between Jews and Christians were enforced, with Jews living in walled-off areas.

In many ways, I'm of the opinion that the Holocaust is the worst of the trend of Anti-Semitism that has been part of European history since the conversion of the Roman empire to Christianity.

none of these above it was cuz the Nazi party way back wwhen it was only 6 members they wroght a book on all there views from the ultimate race to killing jews once they got in control then hitler found there party after he was cast out of the german army and hitler found out he was good a drawign a crowd and after ww1 the goverment was in such a pit and the nazi party grew so big hitler asked the goverment to sign him as dictator for 4years as during those 4 years germany was growing quickly and every one started liking him more all ignoring the fact about his book on what he wanted to do then cam a time when he allyed with russia and devided up poland and attacked them then hitler decided to take on france taking them over in a few weeks with blitzcreek attacks and then he waited a long time to attack great britan because he want the world to be just germany and britian while he missed the perfect time to attack he did en up attacking and dominated all of great britan while not attackingthe capitol to let them survive (so it would only be germany and great britian) then he dicided to betray russia and we waited 3 months to attack witch ended him in russian winter -just a brief summary of ww2 from my history book

I suggest getting a new history book my friend.

He attacked London many times, it was called the Blitz.

The type of strategy that the German army used was called the 'Blitzkrieg'.

Not to mention the book seems to miss out Appeasement, Czechaslovakia, France etc etc...

You know, anti-Semitism did not start with modern Germany nor can you blame the German people in general for the Holocaust. The Jewish people have been the victims of every European nation throughout history for being a minority and an easy target for being a scapegoat without an actual independent nation to call home. You can find these problems even in ancient Rome and even before that. You find same problems in Africa, Rwanda for example, where a certain group of people (Tutsis) were singled out and murdered. The holocaust is different with the past atrocities (to Jews) because of the use of mass industrial to try to exterminate Jews throughout Europe with industrial results.

I think it's simpler than all that, really. Hitler was a sociopath, but he was a genius in some ways as well. Here's a guy who knew how to seize the opportunity during the devastation of post World War I to unify the people toward his ends. One of the best ways to unify a people is to give them a common enemy. That enemy was the Allies, which gave the people a sense of nationalism. He also gave them Jews, blaming them for the problems at home that he coudln't easily pin on the Allies.

He had credibility because he was good at knowing what the people wanted to hear and then saying it. The government was weak and not trusted, and by creating organizations like the Nazi party and SS and so on, gave people something to feel a part of, and that's a very powerful thing.

I honestly believe that the average German citizen was unaware of what was going on at the concentration camps. Anti-Semitism was rampant, which is why most people probably didn't mind the "relocation," but I believe that the people would have been horrified to know the truth.

So I wouldn't say that Germany itself was ripe for the Holocaust, I'd say that Hitler was just in the "right" place at the "right" time to make it happen. Under similar circumstances it could certainly happen elsewhere. Think about the camps Japanese and Americans of Japanese origin were rounded up into in the days following the attack on Pearl Harbor. Did most Americans know about it? Probably not, but they were almost universally angry at Japanese and probably didn't think too much about it. That's only a step away from mass executions.

THAT, my friends, is why a Government should never be allowed to get out of the control of the people.

The holocaust can and does happen everywhere ask an Armenian or a kurd or an American Indian a South American of any one of a 100 different tribes ..a person in dafur ..pick an African Country...hey remember Pakistan ? bangledesh ? india ?

Whats so special about Germany ? They elected Hitler he provided a total police state ..took all those with any balls in the army and sent them off to die ..HID the fact that he was actually commiting genocide with bullshit and machine guns ...the base for the hatred already existed in german society...but HOW about the occupied countries like Austria and France etc. that went about rounding up jews like it was a picknic ? and how about the US government and the POPE and churchill and the rest who because of popular opinion or more acurately predudice...did NOTHING ...how many just said "so what he kills a few Jews " ? why Germany indeed ..it could have been new York ...or Better yet Atlanta...ever hear of the KKK ?

predudice knows no borders Germanys nothing special . Japan did a nice job wipiong out Chinese BTW...lets not forget them...


The best for last ..Stalin....Ukarainians antone ? how many millions was it ?

Reading "Mein Kampf", I realised one thing that might explain a lot about Hitler though.

He lived in Austria, yet he considered himself German. He lived in exile, so to speak, forever ranting on about a government of foreigners and so on.

That is exactly the same thing that immigrants are experiencing everywhere. It's considered to be an important factor in explaining what drives people to extremism and terrorism. It's radicalised people throughout history.

Hell, even I have felt the sort of effects that come with being put into a foreign environment, and the changed perceptions that also brings of one's "real home".

Any thoughts?


Yep....I was struck by the difference between the United States..we have illegal immigrants marching around protesting and taking off from work ..jobs that they ...being.." Illegal " immigrants and all.. as opposed to those that follow actual rules of law ..and become legal immigrants ....shouldnt really be bringing attention to...being that they are illegal and all...but I digress..while all this nice peacfull parade of millions of illegal immigrants have been going on all over my very well despised country....I thought back to FRANCE and how the " immigrants " legal , illegal and otherwise made their point and how it was handled ..... ahhh yes ....

Its nice to live in a country were you can cross the border ...get some work..then pick up a sign and go protest and get on T. V. and if you get hurt
you just walk into any hospital and get patched up...or take advantage of all the rest of the social services available that it seems no one knows exist....
except of course for the millions of those who are using them...and the millions more trying to escape from what ever rat hole they are in so they can improve their lot in life....and the people who actually pay the billions of dollars in taxes ..the people of the United states..the citizens ..the working class legal or otherwise..death and taxes being THE truth ...because just because your illegal doesnt free you from taxes ...hehehehe no friggin way bro' we look stupid ?



We being the uber capitalist running dogs of doom and despair that we are...


So you were saying ?

to repeat what other people have probably said already. Germany didn't create the holocaust.

The first place you run across the word (or more precisely the word in latin, holocaustum) is referring to England in 1191. When Jews were either killed or thrown out of the country.

Well it's pretty obvious isn't it? Hitler was in power at the time and he didn't believe that some cultures were fit to be considered "True Germans". He did this by killing a lot of people from different ethnic groups because he considered blonde hair and blue eyes as traits of the Aryan heritage ('course he didn't have either. Well the blonde hair I'm sure of.) If Hitler hadn't come to power, the Holocaust would have never happened because there wasn't anyone else around who had his kind of ideaology that would have wanted to become the leader of Germany. It only really happened because it was part of Hitler's plan to take over the world one day.