Question For The Nazis

[Bobcat Fraser]

I just saw a segment about the brave people of London during the Blitz. It was stirring to hear Winston Churchill mention the UK's "finest hour". I have to ask the forum Nazis, especially of American and British descent, how they could support someone like Hitler. What would your grandfathers, who fought in World War II, say? Their generation saved the world from untold horror. Why aren't you grateful and thankful for what these heroes did? When you give the Nazi salute, you spit on your fathers' graves. For that matter, how can any European honor a regime (not country) that almost destroyed Europe?

[Stefan]

I'm not a Nazi, but I sympathize with the National Socialism sentiment and ideals.

Let's talk about the German people, not Hitler nor the Nazi party itself. They believed in what was promised to them, and like dealing with most politicians, were generally let astray. Many "neo-Nazis" I've spoken to romanticize the ideas of such people rather than the bad things they've done.

I, personally, remain objective on the matter. My Grandfather and Great-Grandfather fought in World War II, but I don't think they fought because they thought it was right, but rather because they were part of the military and their country told them to fight. Politics and war are quite complex on all ends.

Much of what the Axis did in WWII was atrocious, but the Allies weren't innocent either, and no country or power today is innocent of atrocities. What matters is what one believes and what one does not believe.

[arcticwolf]

I just saw a segment about the brave people of London during the Blitz. It was stirring to hear Winston Churchill mention the UK's "finest hour". I have to ask the forum Nazis, especially of American and British descent, how they could support someone like Hitler. What would your grandfathers, who fought in World War II, say? Their generation saved the world from untold horror. Why aren't you grateful and thankful for what these heroes did? When you give the Nazi salute, you spit on your fathers' graves. For that matter, how can any European honor a regime (not country) that almost destroyed Europe?

Not being one and actually being a descendant of those who fought against it I may be not the best candidate to answer your question. I love freedom and totalitarian regimes are against almost everything I hold dear.

Here is what I gathered those sympathetic towards them say:

Europe wouldn't be in the multicuti hell it is right now if they won.

There would be no 3rd world immigrants which abuse the generous social system, which works only with honest, civilized citizens.

None of the liberal nonsense would exist

Traditional family values would be upheld

Also they praise them for initiating things like:

animal rights

environmental protection

That's all I recall at the moment.

[kabeiros]

Here is what I gathered those sympathetic towards them say:

Europe wouldn't be in the multicuti hell it is right now if they won.

There would be no 3rd world immigrants which abuse the generous social system, which works only with honest, civilized citizens.

None of the liberal nonsense would exist

Traditional family values would be upheld

Also they praise them for initiating things like:

animal rights

environmental protection

That's all I recall at the moment. This sums it up really nice...
But a totalitarian system is not what we need today, what we need is to free ourselves from the opposite of it : extreme liberal anti-nationalistic multi-culti bullshit...

[Bobcat Fraser]

I'm not a Nazi, but I sympathize with the National Socialism sentiment and ideals.

Let's talk about the German people, not Hitler nor the Nazi party itself. They believed in what was promised to them, and like dealing with most politicians, were generally let astray. Many "neo-Nazis" I've spoken to romanticize the ideas of such people rather than the bad things they've done.

I, personally, remain objective on the matter. My Grandfather and Great-Grandfather fought in World War II, but I don't think they fought because they thought it was right, but rather because they were part of the military and their country told them to fight. Politics and war are quite complex on all ends.

Much of what the Axis did in WWII was atrocious, but the Allies weren't innocent either, and no country or power today is innocent of atrocities. What matters is what one believes and what one does not believe.

Actions matter more than beliefs. The latter direct and instruct the former, but they're animated by actions. Actions speak louder than beliefs, to twist a phrase. The Nazis demonstrated this.

I bet that your grandfathers fought out of a sense of patriotism. My guess is that they would have fought against Hitler and Tojo whether or not they were forced to do so. If possible, it would be instructive to talk with them. They likely could offer a lot of insight into our past.

The Nazis could have taken a course of peace and prosperity after the rise of their fuhrer, but they forced their statist beliefs on others through violent actions. That's what really matters. It was their actions, not just their beliefs, that led to millions of deaths around the world. They chose to do evil, and they suffered the consequences.

[Partizan]

I bet that your grandfathers fought out of a sense of patriotism. My guess is that they would have fought against Hitler and Tojo whether or not they were forced to do so.

I can understand how you associate Pacific front of WW2 to Patriotism,Japan bombed American bases in Hawaii.

However in Europe front,it was just about benefits and diplomacy.American economy wouldn't survive without trade partners in Europe(like France and Britain) and of course Monroe Doctrine couldn't run until doomsday :p

[Bobcat Fraser]

Not being one and actually being a descendant of those who fought against it I may be not the best candidate to answer your question. I love freedom and totalitarian regimes are against almost everything I hold dear.

Here is what I gathered those sympathetic towards them say:

Europe wouldn't be in the multicuti hell it is right now if they won.

There would be no 3rd world immigrants which abuse the generous social system, which works only with honest, civilized citizens.

None of the liberal nonsense would exist

Traditional family values would be upheld

Also they praise them for initiating things like:

animal rights

environmental protection

That's all I recall at the moment.

They fail to mention that more than a few Nazis were addicts and perverts who dabbled in the dark side of the occult. So much for traditional values. They advocated socialism too, so they definitely weren't conservative capitalists. Let's not leave out their destruction of the nuclear family through eugenic "sex farms".

[Stefan]

Actions matter more than beliefs. The latter direct and instruct the former, but they're animated by actions. Actions speak louder than beliefs, to twist a phrase. The Nazis demonstrated this.

I bet that your grandfathers fought out of a sense of patriotism. My guess is that they would have fought against Hitler and Tojo whether or not they were forced to do so. If possible, it would be instructive to talk with them. They likely could offer a lot of insight into our past.

Doubtful, my Grandfather was an immigrant. I don't know about my Great-Grandfather though. I didn't mean it wasn't patriotism for the most part, but it certainly wasn't because they particularly thought the Germans were a threat to them, at least I don't think. The Japanese on the other-hand were much more worrisome, at least for Americans I'd think. They're both dead now so I can't talk to them about it.



The Nazis could have taken a course of peace and prosperity after the rise of their fuhrer, but they forced their statist beliefs on others through violent actions. That's what really matters. It was their actions, not just their beliefs, that led to millions of deaths around the world. They chose to do evil, and they suffered the consequences.

How many deaths did the Allies contribute to though? How many civilians? Were they just as evil? What about in other wars which the United States started or contributed to start even, only because they were political opponents of the U.S.S.R or some other power? Should we have not been patriotic during Vietnam, for example? I think much of it has to do with beliefs. Otherwise, the Nazis would not have gained political power, and hence would not have invaded other nations. Germans *wanted* Nazis, and it backfired in many ways, whilst in other ways it benefited them (economically, nationally, etc)

[Bobcat Fraser]

I can understand how you associate Pacific front of WW2 to Patriotism,Japan bombed American bases in Hawaii.

However in Europe front,it was just about benefits and diplomacy.American economy wouldn't survive without trade partners in Europe(like France and Britain) and of course Monroe Doctrine couldn't run until doomsday :p

Well, Hitler did declare war on us. We stayed out of the war before the mass murder at Pearl Harbor, but we aided our allies before that. Unfortunately, some of our banks and businesses helped our enemies too. There were strange financial ties that are kept out of most high school history books.

[Bobcat Fraser]

How many deaths did the Allies contribute to though? How many civilians? Were they just as evil? What about in other wars which the United States started or contributed to start even, only because they were political opponents of the U.S.S.R or some other power? Should we have not been patriotic during Vietnam, for example? I think much of it has to do with beliefs. Otherwise, the Nazis would not have gained political power, and hence would not have invaded other nations. Germans *wanted* Nazis, and it backfired in many ways, whilst in other ways it benefited them (economically, nationally, etc)

The civilian deaths could not be avoided due to the size and scope of the war. That's not to say that the fire-bombing of Dresden was truly just, and that's not to say that one can't debate the wisdom of the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Still, World War II can't be adequately lumped in with the wars that followed it. We had to defeat Hitler to save the world, and that's not hyperbole.

[Stefan]

I don't think it's that black and white. If the Nazi party was so evil, you'd think the German people would just say no, and kick em out. Manipulation or not, the German people were behind it as a whole or a large whole. Hitler was only one man, yes a man. And in all cases, there were probably the good and the bad in such a nation. Much like in today's imperialistic America there is both good and bad.

[Bobcat Fraser]

Doubtful, my Grandfather was an immigrant. I don't know about my Great-Grandfather though. I didn't mean it wasn't patriotism for the most part, but it certainly wasn't because they particularly thought the Germans were a threat to them, at least I don't think. The Japanese on the other-hand were much more worrisome, at least for Americans I'd think. They're both dead now so I can't talk to them about it.

My grandpa would have kicked my butt if I would have expressed any admiration for Hitler or Nazis. He even forbade anybody to watch "Hogan's Heroes" reruns at his house. I once drew a swastika out of ignorance when I was in elementary school, and he certainly set me straight. I won't repeat what he said about skinheads.

[Bobcat Fraser]

I don't think it's that black and white. If the Nazi party was so evil, you'd think the German people would just say no, and kick em out. Manipulation or not, the German people were behind it as a whole or a large whole. Hitler was only one man, yes a man. And in all cases, there were probably the good and the bad in such a nation. Much like in today's imperialistic America there is both good and bad.

There indeed are shades of gray in most situation. In this particular case, I see things in the colors of coal and snow. I'm referring to the beginning of the period when he crossed the spiritual Rubicon by murdering innocent citizens, as well as invading neighboring states. It's hard to see any shades of gray there.

[Stefan]

My grandpa would have kicked my butt if I would have expressed any admiration for Hitler or Nazis. He even forbade anybody to watch "Hogan's Heroes" reruns at his house. I once drew a swastika out of ignorance when I was in elementary school, and he certainly set me straight. I won't repeat what he said about skinheads.

Well, I think some Nazis are a bit, eccentric. Everybody is entitled to their beliefs though, as long as they don't act upon the harmful ones unless absolutely necessary. The Nazis weren't all bad either. They did have core values that I admire very much: strong ethnic cohesion, family cohesion, and strong work ethic, for example. Take out their issues with national boundaries and the want to repopulate other nations with Germans, which by far overshadow the good, and I'd like to have been born in a nation like that, to a people like that. There were far worse nations in history. Monarch France (pre-revolution) for example, seemed to have been quite horrible.

[Bobcat Fraser]

Well, I think some Nazis are a bit, eccentric. Everybody is entitled to their beliefs though, as long as they don't act upon the harmful ones unless absolutely necessary. The Nazis weren't all bad either. They did have core values that I admire very much: strong ethnic cohesion, family cohesion, and strong work ethic, for example. Take out their issues with national boundaries and the want to repopulate other nations with Germans, which by far overshadow the good, and I'd like to have been born in a nation like that, to a people like that. There were far worse nations in history. Monarch France (pre-revolution) for example, seemed to have been quite horrible.

People can say or think what they please in a free country. We agree on that. The Nazis definitely didn't share our view on that, though. One could be murdered for disagreeing with their statist philosophy. I also think that the Nazis were much worse than the Bourbons. Look at the concentration camps, for starters. I don't see a true emphasis on family cohesion, to speak on another of your points. Their breeding programs and youth camps seem more like the antitheses of our traditional American ideas of marriage and raising children.

[Stefan]

People can say or think what they please in a free country. We agree on that. The Nazis definitely didn't share our view on that, though.One could be murdered for disagreeing with their statist philosophy.
Do modern Nazi "sympathizers"or "fans" believe this though?


I also think that the Nazis were much worse than the Bourbons.

In some ways yes, but not in all. The German people were fed and taken care of, which for a German is probably the most important thing. I can't say that much for the French under monarch rule.



Look at the concentration camps, for starters. I don't see a true emphasis on family cohesion, to speak on another of your points.

What about Native-American genocide. Should we hate our own ancestors for doing such a thing? Should we ignore everything they had to offer us because they enslaved and killed Native-Americans? Caused rampant disease in their populations, and forced them to migrate west dieing on the way?



Their breeding programs and youth camps seem more like the antitheses of our traditional American ideas of marriage and raising children.

Such ideas originated in America, such as eugenics.

[Bobcat Fraser]

Stefan, the bottom line is that I can't defend or excuse what the Nazis did, let alone condone it. It was much worse than what the Bourbons did, as bad as they were. Yes, the French kings oppressed their own people. Did the Germans not do the same....in spades? Germans were murdered and tortured. Germans were the victims of grotesque experiments. Germans were used as cannon fodder. On your last point, there were American eugenicists, but we didn't take things to the levels that the Nazis took them.

[Stefan]

Stefan, the bottom line is that I can't defend or excuse what the Nazis did, let alone condone it.
I'm not trying to condone it or excuse it, I'm just saying it isn't very exceptional compared to other things people have done in history.


It was much worse than what the Bourbons did, as bad as they were. Yes, the French kings oppressed their own people. Did the Germans not do the same....in spades? Germans were murdered and tortured.Germans were the victims of grotesque experiments.


I haven't heard of that, but I'll take your word on it. The allied powers weren't much better though.

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


Germans were used as cannon fodder.

As were the other participants of the war.



On your last point, there were American eugenicists, but we didn't take things to the levels that the Nazis took them.

Given the right political push, it could have been.

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

[Stefan]

From that first link.


Judge Robert H. Jackson, Chief US prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials in a letter discussing the potential weaknesses of the trial, in October 1945 told US President Harry S. Truman that the Allies themselves:
"have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest."
Under the Nuremberg Principles some of the crimes specified were:
ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory;
murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population.

[Bobcat Fraser]

I'm not trying to condone it or excuse it, I'm just saying it isn't very exceptional compared to other things people have done in history.



I haven't heard of that, but I'll take your word on it. The allied powers weren't much better though.

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



As were the other participants of the war.



Given the right political push, it could have been.

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

I don't agree with that. The war led to the deaths and ruined homelands of millions of people around the world, and there were no known conflicts like it before that time. The Holocaust immediately comes to mind too. Hitler's evil was atypical, even by historical standards.

You haven't heard of the millions of German Jews and Gentiles who were murdered and tortured by Nazis? They indeed were Germans. Nazis killed scores of their fellow Germans. Louis XIV was a piker by comparison.

The Nazis started the war with cannon fodder. The other countries had to defend and protect themselves any way they could. It's also highly inaccurate to draw a moral equivalence with the allies. Sometimes, there really are "bad guys".

I know a lot about eugenicists. It's true that the Nazis got some of their ideas on the subject from American and British sources. My point was that there were no American "sex farms" where breeding programs took place. I won't say that the American eugenicists had clean hands, though.

[Stefan]

I don't agree with that. The war led to the deaths and ruined homelands of millions of people around the world, and there were no known conflicts like it before that time. The Holocaust immediately comes to mind too. Hitler's evil was atypical, even by historical standards.

Did you read that article? The Russians forced German workers to manage radioactive material, many died of radiation poisoning. Overall, 1 million Germans are unaccounted for. That's probably close to what the real values of the holocaust were, and they died in just as horrible, if not more horrible ways.


You haven't heard of the millions of German Jews and Gentiles who were murdered and tortured by Nazis? They indeed were Germans. Nazis killed scores of their fellow Germans. Louis XIV was a piker by comparison.

Not Gentiles. I can tell you German Jews weren't Germans though, but for some reason you probably won't believe me?


The Nazis started the war with cannon fodder. The other countries had to defend and protect themselves any way they could. It's also highly inaccurate to draw a moral equivalence with the allies. Sometimes, there really are "bad guys".

Americans didn't have any place in Europe, yet we went to protect economic interests. ;) The same is true for a few other countries. It was basically the same buddy system that led to WW1



I know a lot about eugenicists. It's true that the Nazis got some of their ideas on the subject from American and British sources. My point was that there were no American "sex farms" where breeding programs took place. I won't say that the American eugenicists had clean hands, though.

Pretty much all of the Nazi ideas on race came from the U.S. They even were funded by U.S eugenicists, many of which still exist today.

[Bobcat Fraser]

Did you read that article? The Russians forced German workers to manage radioactive material, many died of radiation poisoning. Overall, 1 million Germans are unaccounted for. That's probably close to what the real values of the holocaust were, and they died in just as horrible, if not more horrible ways.



Not Gentiles. I can tell you German Jews weren't Germans though, but for some reason you probably won't believe me?


You're right about the commies. They committed numerous war crimes. I was thinking about just the American and British forces when I replied to you. The Russian troops' actions (murder, rape, theft, vandalism) are highly documented, just like the information about the war crime that you posted.

German Jews were German Jews, but it would be a waste of time to debate that. The truth is that the state homicides in Germany included disabled, dissident, homosexual, and "undesirable" civilians of all stripes, as the Jews weren't the sole targeted group. Were they not Germans? Sure, they were.

[Stefan]

Well the French were bad as well.


At the Yalta conference in January 1945 the Allies agreed upon the use of German forced labor. The U.S. used over 500,000 German POWs in Germany in Military Labor Service Units.[20] Great Britain used 225,000 Germans as "reparations labor". In addition to the 200,000 Germans held by French forces (and 70,000 held by France in Algeria), France demanded 1,700,000 POWs for use as "enforced labor".[21] In July 1945 they were promised 1,300,000 POWs by the SHAEF. The number of actually delivered prisoners is debated, as is the number of surviving POWs eventually released by the French.
Contrary to Section IV of the Hague Convention of 1907, "The Laws and Customs of War on Land", the SHAEF "counter insurgency manual" included provisions for forced labor and hostage taking.
Article 75 of the Geneva Convention (1929) states that repatriation of prisoners shall be effected with the least possible delay after the conclusion of peace.


General George S. Patton commented in his diary "I’m also opposed to sending POW's to work as slaves in foreign lands (in particular, to France) where many will be starved to death." He also noted "It is amusing to recall that we fought the revolution in defense of the rights of man and the civil war to abolish slavery and have now gone back on both principles". On 12 October 1945 The New York Herald Tribune reported that the French were starving their POWs, and compared their emaciation to that of those liberated from the Dachau concentration camp.

You are right, though, the U.S was more civilized with our approach, but we've since gotten much worse.

[Stefan]

As for the Jews, Germans didn't consider them German. So I think that is how we should consider it.

[rhiannon]

What about Native-American genocide. Should we hate our own ancestors for doing such a thing? Should we ignore everything they had to offer us because they enslaved and killed Native-Americans? Caused rampant disease in their populations, and forced them to migrate west dieing on the way?


This is an excellent question, one to which the answer causes a lot of ambivalence for me. I hate what some of my ancestors likely did, for they were certainly here at the perfect time to engage in warfare against the NAs. I feel horrible for what they did, because genocide or attempted genocide is fundamentally immoral and wrong. My dilemma arises because despite these feelings, I am intelligent enough to recognize how I wouldn't be here at all had it not been for the actions of my ancestors.

It is a catch 22 for me.:ohwell:

[Accountant]

I just saw a segment about the brave people of London during the Blitz. It was stirring to hear Winston Churchill mention the UK's "finest hour". I have to ask the forum Nazis, especially of American and British descent, how they could support someone like Hitler. What would your grandfathers, who fought in World War II, say? Their generation saved the world from untold horror. Why aren't you grateful and thankful for what these heroes did? When you give the Nazi salute, you spit on your fathers' graves. For that matter, how can any European honor a regime (not country) that almost destroyed Europe?

Do you think Hitler wanted war with Britain? Hitler considered Brits to be brothers of the German folk.

WW2 was a war between two rivaling ideologies: (European) nationalism and (Jewish) internationalism/globalism.

Churchill was a fool who thought Germany was the biggest threat towards the British Empire. Look at Britain now! Niggers rioting in London, Pakistani rape gangs running out of control and native men sitting in their pubs drinking piss-warm lager. Siding with Soviet Union and USA really helped the British Empire, right? Because of this there is no Empire, just an island filled with foreign Muslim invaders.



The Nazis could have taken a course of peace and prosperity after the rise of their fuhrer, but they forced their statist beliefs on others through violent actions. That's what really matters. It was their actions, not just their beliefs, that led to millions of deaths around the world. They chose to do evil, and they suffered the consequences.

Course of peace? Germans were being abused in Poland by (jewish) communists on German soil, stolen from them after WW1. Hitler loved his people and wouldn't let this continue. War was the only solution. War against Soviet Union was also necessary, we all know how nationalist people were dealt with in USSR. Soviet Union was going to invade Europe and Hitler was our only hope.


It was their actions, not just their beliefs, that led to millions of deaths around the world. They chose to do evil, and they suffered the consequences.

Evil actions? Like what? Is rape of millions of German women an evil act for you? Let's compare some others:

London bombings - Dresden bombings

Holocaust - Stalinist purges, Holodomor

German POW camps - Eisenhower death camps

Which side was better again?


For that matter, how can any European honor a regime (not country) that almost destroyed Europe?

It seems you are honoring a regime that is currently destroying Europe.

[Stefan]

Eei1Fs3l6Kc

[Mistic]

[QUOTE]I just saw a segment about the brave people of London during the Blitz. It was stirring to hear Winston Churchill mention the UK's "finest hour".

He started the war.


I have to ask the forum Nazis, especially of American and British descent, how they could support someone like Hitler. What would your grandfathers, who fought in World War II, say? Their generation saved the world from untold horror.


Then they were responsible for turning Europe into a chaotic sleaze pit that it is today.



Why aren't you grateful and thankful for what these heroes did?

The word Hero = arsehole.


When you give the Nazi salute, you spit on your fathers' graves. For that matter, how can any European honor a regime (not country) that almost destroyed Europe?

I don't give a Roman salute, I'm not a national socialist German worker, or a supporter of dead madmen like Hitler. I just don't like Stalin or Churchill either as they were bloodthirsty. I don't think the war should've happened, as it could've been avoided. The Americans were hardly whiter than white so can't really judge German people.

[Contra Mundum]

I had several family members who fought in WW2 and none of them knew anything about Germany or National Socialism for that matter, and they were exposed to ridiculous propaganda. They were told the Germans were animals and would rape their mothers and sisters and murder their families. They all admitted they were ignorant at the time. In their minds they fought to defend America, but in reality, that wasn't the case. They were fighting for globalism and multiculturalism. That was the ultimate goal of those pulling the strings. The way I see things, the Germans were the ones fighting for white America, not my ancestors. I'm not disrespecting those who fought in the American military. They were patriotic young men who were exploited by people who never had the best interests of this country at heart.

Btw, this reminds me of a story my grandfather told me. After the US declared war on Germany, his father told him that he and one of those German farmers could sit down and work this whole thing out. The politicians are the ones who want war.

[Kazimiera]

There are no more Nazi's. The few that are left are in their 80's and 90's.

You are not directing your questions to the real thing, just a few people who wish they were born about 100 years ago.

[Contra Mundum]

Well, Hitler did declare war on us. We stayed out of the war before the mass murder at Pearl Harbor, but we aided our allies before that. Unfortunately, some of our banks and businesses helped our enemies too. There were strange financial ties that are kept out of most high school history books.

The US and Germany were in an undeclared war before that. FDR was actively assisting the British and Soviets. He wanted war, but the American people wanted no part of it before Pearl Harbor, despite a certain powerful minority group spreading lies about Germany to the American masses in the newspapers and on radio.

Hitler tried to avoid war with US, but it was impossible with FDR as President.

[Stefan]

It only makes sense. We were just leaving a depression and didn't want to sink back into one. FDR thought a war would make money and would help secure economic partners from the, then, superpowers (France and Britain.)

[Contra Mundum]

My grandpa would have kicked my butt if I would have expressed any admiration for Hitler or Nazis. He even forbade anybody to watch "Hogan's Heroes" reruns at his house. I once drew a swastika out of ignorance when I was in elementary school, and he certainly set me straight. I won't repeat what he said about skinheads.

I don't doubt that. I get the same reaction if I dare criticize Israel in front of family members. It's called media brainwashing.

[Osprey]

Mr Fraser, you come off as a ridiculously brainwashed fool.
There is never a black and white in war.
Especially for us, Americans.
War is basically an idelogical conflict. WW2 was good for the Germans and bad for the Jews and (sadly, Slavs).
Every side tries to dominate the other.
Jews have a strangelhold over American finance. But i don't see you crying over it?
Its because Germans were violent and Jews know how to play the game?
They are dishonest as hell, and in Hollywood, its impossible to become an established gentile director with free will.
WW2 was basically a war serving financial interests. There was no 'right or 'wrong'. Only serving of interests. Just because the current govt has drugged the population into a lull of complacency and self righteousness, doesn't mean that we are getting the American dream, as was envisioned by our great forefathers.

[Arthas]

I have to ask the forum Nazis, especially of American and British descent, how they could support someone like Hitler. What would your grandfathers, who fought in World War II, say? Their generation saved the world from untold horror.

The failure of fascism in Europe is the main reason our countries are full of third world trash. I don't support Hitler's actions but I certainly support what he stood for. The world would be a better place if the Axis won WW2, and this is coming from a Mischling!

[Contra Mundum]

The failure of fascism in Europe is the main reason our countries are full of third world trash. I don't support Hitler's actions but I certainly support what he stood for. The world would be a better place if the Axis won WW2, and this is coming from a Mischling!



According to historian and Israeli Army and U.S. Marine Corps veteran Bryan Mark Rigg, up to 160,000 one-quarter, one-half, and even full Jewish men served in the German armed forces during World War II, including several generals and at least one field marshal, Erhard Milch.:cool:

[Smaland]

I don't agree with that. The war led to the deaths and ruined homelands of millions of people around the world, and there were no known conflicts like it before that time. The Holocaust immediately comes to mind too. Hitler's evil was atypical, even by historical standards.

I believe that the Holocaust™ is a fable, it's a fraud.

Because mainstream historians have told us such a whopper, I would be skeptical as well about other things they have written about the Nazi period.

[Heart of Oak]

My father fought with the chindits in burmur, I dont like nazis, but I like there idelisem...

[Tony]

Their generation saved the world from untold horror.
You must be kidding eh?:picard1:

They're not heroes, they handed over half the world to commies and 99% of America, Western Europe to Jews, who since then have been shapin' our contries into multiracial cesspools when subhumans are set free to roam and only the elite (uberich, jews and a few Europeans) can live safe and really enjoy life.

They've been useful idiots, George Patton got it at the end of the war, he said Americans fight the wrong side.

Too late George...

[Bobcat Fraser]

You answered my question. I now have more insight into the minds of historical revisionists and/or Nazi sympathizers. It's good to know where people stand on certain issues. It helps to understand their perspectives on a wide range of things.

I predicted some of your responses, so there were no real surprises. I knew that the Jews would be blamed. I knew that many people would claim that the world would be better if Hitler and the Nazis won, especially when it came to immigration. I knew that I would be called a dupe, patsy, stooge, etc..

It all comes back to a deeper question for me, though. Why did Hitler invade Poland and other countries? Why did the Holocaust take place, and why would anybody (Farrakhan comes to mind), in their right mind, think that some Jews supported this abomination? How can you defend the tyrant who almost destroyed the world, and you need to be educated if you think that's an overstatement.

Do we have any common ground? I think that the Treaty of Versailles planted the seeds that grew the bitter fruit in a soil of German despair. Various states, on both sides, committed horrible war crimes, and there were financial interests (not just rich Jews) that played a part in supporting the rise of the Third Reich. Lastly, the fire-bombing of Dresden went above and beyond what was necessary.

[Bobcat Fraser]

The US and Germany were in an undeclared war before that. FDR was actively assisting the British and Soviets. He wanted war, but the American people wanted no part of it before Pearl Harbor Hitler tried to avoid war with US, but it was impossible with FDR as President.

I agree with the part that I quoted. I disagree with the part that I omitted. We indeed gave supplies and support to the allies before we entered the war, and most Americans indeed wanted to stay out of the conflict. The war to end all wars was fresh in their minds.

[Bobcat Fraser]

As for the Jews, Germans didn't consider them German. So I think that is how we should consider it.

They were German. They were citizens of Germany. They were born and raised there, and many of them fought in World War I. They had ancestors who lived in Germany. The Nazis could have labeled them as Martians. It wouldn't mean that they lived on Mars. The Nazis changed their status so that they could be marginalized and murdered. They changed the rules of language to suit their vile philosophy.

[Bobcat Fraser]

He started the war.



Then they were responsible for turning Europe into a chaotic sleaze pit that it is today.



The word Hero = arsehole.



I don't give a Roman salute, I'm not a national socialist German worker, or a supporter of dead madmen like Hitler. I just don't like Stalin or Churchill either as they were bloodthirsty. I don't think the war should've happened, as it could've been avoided. The Americans were hardly whiter than white so can't really judge German people.

Who stated the war? How could it have been avoided when Germany invaded a neighboring sovereign state? They couldn't just let Hitler conquer Poland and other countries. That's not how it's done.

I would keep my beliefs to myself if I were you. There still are a lot of veterans, *who helped to save the world*, where you live. They wouldn't appreciate people, who benefitted from their generations' sacrifices, who aren't grateful or thankful to live in a UK free of Nazi despotism. It could be that you might feel more at home in Iran, and your "whiteness" comment means nothing.

[Ionosphere]

I think most British soldiers would not have fought against Germany if they could have looked into a crystal ball and seen what their country would be like only a few decades later.

[Bobcat Fraser]

There are no more Nazi's. The few that are left are in their 80's and 90's.

You are not directing your questions to the real thing, just a few people who wish they were born about 100 years ago.

Nazis exist in 2012. Not all of them are old people who lived and fought under Hitler. We've had Nazi groups here for years. George Lincoln Rockwell founded the American Nazi Party long after Hitler killed himself. There are/were American Nazi groups before and after Rockwell. It should be clear that I'm not talking about octogenarians and nonagenarians. Now, to whom should I direct my question? Do tell.

[Bobcat Fraser]

I think most British soldiers would not have fought against Germany if they could have looked into a crystal ball and seen what their country would be like only a few decades later.

Someone should make a poll which asks that very question. My bet is that the vast majority of British vets would answer in the affirmative.

[Bobcat Fraser]

This is an excellent question, one to which the answer causes a lot of ambivalence for me. I hate what some of my ancestors likely did, for they were certainly here at the perfect time to engage in warfare against the NAs. I feel horrible for what they did, because genocide or attempted genocide is fundamentally immoral and wrong. My dilemma arises because despite these feelings, I am intelligent enough to recognize how I wouldn't be here at all had it not been for the actions of my ancestors.

It is a catch 22 for me.:ohwell:

Let's hope that White guilt's not contagious. I agree that the treatment of the Native Americans was shameful, and the Trail of Tears was a black mark on the historical record. You need to realize that both European Americans and Native Americans were guilty of atrocities. The frontier wan't a New Age PC Disney cartoon. Some of my White ancestors might have killed Cherokee, and some of my Cherokee ancestors might have killed Whites. I don't feel responsibility or shame for either scenario. Something tells me that you would feel guilt just for the former. I doubt that this would be so if Native Americans burned your cabin to the ground after they slaughtered all of the inhabitants. I also wonder if you feel the same sense of guilt for what your European forebears did to your other European forebears. I wonder if you're outraged over what Genghis Khan did to Europeans. My guess, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that it bothers you only when minority groups are the victims. I get that impression from your posts, as well as your reactions to them.

[spaz]

Here is what I gathered those sympathetic towards them say:

Europe wouldn't be in the multicuti hell it is right now if they won.

There would be no 3rd world immigrants which abuse the generous social system, which works only with honest, civilized citizens.

None of the liberal nonsense would exist

Traditional family values would be upheld

Also they praise them for initiating things like:

animal rights

environmental protection

That's all I recall at the moment.

Ironically, I think Germany's actions during World War 2 actually contributed to the increase in multicultural societies and immigration in western Europe post-war. They basically achieved the exact opposite of what they sought to achieve.

[Bobcat Fraser]

My father fought with the chindits in burmur, I dont like nazis, but I like there idelisem...

My grandpas and their brothers and cousins fought in the army or the navy. It seemed like most of the male residents of their coal camps and small towns did so. One of them was decorated for saving drowning sailors from a sinking boat. My great-grandma had at least three sons in the war, a three-star mom.

[Smaland]

Bob,

As your anger and disappointment cool down, I hope that you won't let them coalesce into a long-lasting bitterness.

I honestly believe what I wrote about the Holocaust, and I think that my Holocaust-is-a-fable thread provides the evidence to back me up.

My father is a combat veteran of the Pacific War, and I admire and appreciate him just as much as I would otherwise.

I just think that, if we knew the entire truth about the European War, we might want to reconsider our degree of involvement there.

[Bobcat Fraser]

Bob,

As your anger and disappointment cool down, I hope that you won't let them coalesce into a long-lasting bitterness.

I honestly believe what I wrote about the Holocaust, and I think that my Holocaust-is-a-fable thread provides the evidence to back me up.

My father is a combat veteran of the Pacific War, and I admire and appreciate him just as much as I would otherwise.

I just think that, if we knew the entire truth about the European War, we might want to reconsider our degree of involvement there.

I'm not mad. I thought that my replies were controlled and measured. I rarely lose my temper on these forums. I might be a bit disappointed, but that's how it goes. I realize that there's more to the story than what we've been told. There were figures and forces behind the scenes that are seldom mentioned. I'm not referring to Jews. I'm talking about a consortium comprised of people of varied ethnicities.

[arcticwolf]

Ironically, I think Germany's actions during World War 2 actually contributed to the increase in multicultural societies and immigration in western Europe post-war. They basically achieved the exact opposite of what they sought to achieve.

I agree with you. If they had not started the shit they started none of what we have today would have happened more than likely. The sheer amount of suffering has caused the shift in mentality that enabled liberalism. That's a very good point.

[Stefan]

They were German. They were citizens of Germany. They were born and raised there, and many of them fought in World War I. They had ancestors who lived in Germany. The Nazis could have labeled them as Martians. It wouldn't mean that they lived on Mars. The Nazis changed their status so that they could be marginalized and murdered. They changed the rules of language to suit their vile philosophy.

Ethnicities are arbitrary entities with empirical basis in history. Jews are a distinct group despite living in Germany for thousands of years. They didn't assimilate into the Germans, and hence, they retained their non-German composition: genetically, religiously, culturally, and politically. You see this in the genetic results recorded today, and it's quite interesting how well the Nazis and Germans knew the distinction existed before the advent of genetics. They knew it from historical records and common political trends. Jews are not Central Europeans nor are they Germans, from an ethnic perspective. One can argue for nationality, but in a nation-state, nationality strictly intertwines with the nation of a people. Now I'm sure the Jews were a diverse group, and some might even tried to assimilate with Germans, but from what I could tell, in even very Jewish-oriented novels; like "Night" by Elie Wiesel, they even considered themselves distinct from their host population.

[Tony]

Ironically, I think Germany's actions during World War 2 actually contributed to the increase in multicultural societies and immigration in western Europe post-war. They basically achieved the exact opposite of what they sought to achieve.

I don't think so.
If you think about multiculturalism and political correctness the trend has started only from the 60s in America, from the 80s in most of Europe and in Eastern Europe sometimes it's even not begun yet...

There's been a time, from 1945 to the 1970s when you could still speak freely about races and stuff like that, more or less.

It's only with the recent immigrants wave over the last decades that's became impossibile for one to speak his mind about the European identity.

[Jedthehumanoid]

Lastly, the fire-bombing of Dresden went above and beyond what was necessary.

Perhaps you should ask the good people of Coventry who were visited by the Luftwaffe in late 1940. As I recall a new standard of bombing was set by Germany. Preliminary bombing to disable the utilities followed by bombing to disable the roads thus disabling the use of fire and rescue vehicles then followed by a blitz of incenduary devices. Dresden was by no means the first just the one that gets trotted out as an allied atrocity. If like Hiroshima it came to save the lives of allied civilians then it was unfortunately necessary.

[Jedthehumanoid]

Someone should make a poll which asks that very question. My bet is that the vast majority of British vets would answer in the affirmative.

Most British veterans lived long enough to know that they made the right choice.

[Contra Mundum]

Perhaps you should ask the good people of Coventry who were visited by the Luftwaffe in late 1940. As I recall a new standard of bombing was set by Germany. Preliminary bombing to disable the utilities followed by bombing to disable the roads thus disabling the use of fire and rescue vehicles then followed by a blitz of incenduary devices. Dresden was by no means the first just the one that gets trotted out as an allied atrocity. If like Hiroshima it came to save the lives of allied civilians then it was unfortunately necessary.

During the Battle of Britain, the British were the first to deliberately attack civilian targets in a bombing raid. I believe it was in response to a German plane dropping bombs unintentionally over a civilian area after it was under attack by British fighters.

Dresden was flat out murder. The commanders who ordered the attack never thought it would help end German resistance. The Allies had run out of military and industrial targets, so they decided to firebomb the previously untouched city of Dresden. It was simply done out of hatred. The city was packed with women and children refugees who had fled the Soviet advance to the east. When Goebbels witnessed the aftermath, he requested that Hitler order the execution of Allied POWs. Luckily for the prisoners, Hitler refused to do so.

[Jedthehumanoid]

During the Battle of Britain, the British were the first to deliberately attack civilian targets in a bombing raid. I believe it was in response to a German plane dropping bombs unintentionally over a civilian area after it was under attack by British fighters.

Dresden was flat out murder. The commanders who ordered the attack never thought it would help end German resistance. The Allies had run out of military and industrial targets, so they decided to firebomb the previously untouched city of Dresden. It was simply done out of hatred. The city was packed with women and children refugees who had fled the Soviet advance to the east. When Goebbels witnessed the aftermath, he requested that Hitler order the execution of Allied POWs. Luckily for the prisoners, Hitler refused to do so.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/bombing_Coventry_1940.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/ky3/dresdenforschool/

I assume that the above are close to the facts. One item I do remember is that the factories of Coventry were 3 to 4 times more productive after the raids as the hatred of Nazi Germany fuelled the factory floors. I believe it was a very beautiful city, not any more..

[Contra Mundum]

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/bombing_Coventry_1940.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/ky3/dresdenforschool/

I assume that the above are close to the facts. One item I do remember is that the factories of Coventry were 3 to 4 times more productive after the raids as the hatred of Nazi Germany fuelled the factory floors. I believe it was a very beautiful city, not any more..

Coventry was a legitimate target. It was highly industrialized. 25 percent of all British aircraft produced during the war were built in Coventry. The objective wasn't to massacre civilians like the firebombing of Dresden. I don't see how you can compare the two. Coventry was bombed several times and the total death rate was well under 900. The largest raid was in November of 1940. 515 German bombers caused the deaths of only 565 people. That's barely more than one person killed per bomber. :rolleyes2:

[Bobcat Fraser]

Ethnicities are arbitrary entities with empirical basis in history. Jews are a distinct group despite living in Germany for thousands of years. They didn't assimilate into the Germans, and hence, they retained their non-German composition: genetically, religiously, culturally, and politically. You see this in the genetic results recorded today, and it's quite interesting how well the Nazis and Germans knew the distinction existed before the advent of genetics. They knew it from historical records and common political trends. Jews are not Central Europeans nor are they Germans, from an ethnic perspective. One can argue for nationality, but in a nation-state, nationality strictly intertwines with the nation of a people. Now I'm sure the Jews were a diverse group, and some might even tried to assimilate with Germans, but from what I could tell, in even very Jewish-oriented novels; like "Night" by Elie Wiesel, they even considered themselves distinct from their host population.

The Jews were a huge part of German society, though. They fought and died in World War I. They added to the economy, and they contributed to the culture. They didn't form vociferous pressure groups, either. You can't say the same for some segments of *American* society. You couldn't even tell Gentiles and Jews apart in many cases. Of course, there was religious bigotry, but there was national assimilation too. I bet the bank that the Jews in Berlin blended in better than the Muslims in London.

[Bobcat Fraser]

Perhaps you should ask the good people of Coventry who were visited by the Luftwaffe in late 1940. As I recall a new standard of bombing was set by Germany. Preliminary bombing to disable the utilities followed by bombing to disable the roads thus disabling the use of fire and rescue vehicles then followed by a blitz of incenduary devices. Dresden was by no means the first just the one that gets trotted out as an allied atrocity. If like Hiroshima it came to save the lives of allied civilians then it was unfortunately necessary.

We're on the same side, Jed. My grandpa told me stories about what the Nazis did to your country. He mentioned the rubble and ruin of the city of London. You're preaching to the choir. What the huns did to Coventry was barbaric and inhuman. I understand the need for just retaliation. I think that the fire-bombing of Dresden went beyond acceptable parameters of warfare, though. It was not the right kind of military response. Targeting civilians in that way could not be justified. Of course, I've heard it said that there would have been no Hiroshima or Nagasaki if there had been no Pearl Harbor. There would have been no Dresden if there had been no Blitz.

[Anusiya]

You are very right about this. Something that needs to be mentioned is that many Germans of Jewish descent fought ferociously on the side of the nazis. That's why many people nowadays see Ashkenazy Jews as something "foreign" and obscure. They counted as more fanatic and more delusional nazis compared to the -not-too-many-after-all-pure blooded compatriots (The German people are a mix too). I think it was a struggle for individual survival. Tooth and nail that is. Don't forget Heidrich. Or Goebbels. How could they do all this with no sense of remorse?

[Bobcat Fraser]

You are very right about this. Something that needs to be mentioned is that many Germans of Jewish descent fought ferociously on the side of the nazis. That's why many people nowadays see Ashkenazy Jews as something "foreign" and obscure. They counted as more fanatic and more delusional nazis compared to the -not-too-many-after-all-pure blooded compatriots (The German people are a mix too). I think it was a struggle for individual survival. Tooth and nail that is. Don't forget Heidrich. Or Goebbels. How could they do all this with no sense of remorse?

There were Jewish guards in Nazi concentration camps too. They gave a new meaning to the word, "collaborator".

[Anusiya]

There were Jewish guards in Nazi concentration camps too. They gave a new meaning to the word, "collaborator".

The mind boggling thing is, that many of their modern sympathizers claim to struggle for racial uniqueness and diversity in Europe, however, the nazis had this little, well...tendency to wipe out anything that was different and diverse. Say, homosexuals, gypsies, Slavs, Jews, regime dissidents, priests, too short, too tall, too thin and too fat.

[Bobcat Fraser]

The mind boggling thing is, that many of their modern sympathizers claim to struggle for racial uniqueness and diversity in Europe, however, the nazis had this little, well...tendency to wipe out anything that was different and diverse. Say, homosexuals, gypsies, Slavs, Jews, regime dissidents, priests, too short, too tall, too thin and too fat.

Some Jews looked like "Aryans", and some "Aryans" looked like Jews. It brought the madness and monstrosity of Nazi racial beliefs to new heights of insanity. It showed the dangers of pseudo-science rising to the level of scientific orthodoxy. We need to learn from this abomination.

[Anusiya]

We need to learn from this abomination.

Yes, but we also need to learn from human behavior. What caused this monstrosity in assimilated Jews in Germany and not the same in Russia? Why did Haber went on an all out chemical warfare venture, and what kept Einstein from nukeing the whole world to smithereens?

[Bobcat Fraser]

Yes, but we also need to learn from human behavior. What caused this monstrosity in assimilated Jews in Germany and not the same in Russia? Why did Haber went on an all out chemical warfare venture, and what kept Einstein from nukeing the whole world to smithereens?

I don't think that we're reading from the same page, cowboy. I was referring to the National Socialist abomination.

[Anusiya]

I don't think that we're reading from the same page, cowboy. I was referring to the National Socialist abomination.

You're right partner! it's getting late here, better continue tommorow!

[Stefan]

The Jews were a huge part of German society, though. They fought and died in World War I. They added to the economy, and they contributed to the culture. They didn't form vociferous pressure groups, either. You can't say the same for some segments of *American* society. You couldn't even tell Gentiles and Jews apart in many cases. Of course, there was religious bigotry, but there was national assimilation too. I bet the bank that the Jews in Berlin blended in better than the Muslims in London.

So the Nazis were lieing? They pretty much described the same Jews we have issues with in the modern world, and the same Jews other nations have had trouble with throughout history. At least with Muslims, people see the threat with their own eyes: with Jews it's far more subtle.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52480

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55602

[Bobcat Fraser]

So the Nazis were lieing? They pretty much described the same Jews we have issues with in the modern world, and the same Jews other nations have had trouble with throughout history. At least with Muslims, people see the threat with their own eyes: with Jews it's far more subtle.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52480

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55602

I don't put much stock in what mass murderers have to say. I have to consider the source.

[Stefan]

I don't put much stock in what mass murderers have to say. I have to consider the source.

It reflects the general sentiment of the people at the time though. It wasn't something limited to Nazis, and such speeches pre-date their actions, as you referenced.

It only makes sense that a party interested in nationalism would not want somebody separate from their nation within their collective nation-state. Jews weren't of the German nation, no matter how you twist it with what they've contributed.

Like I said before, the events of World War II were the collection of multiple parties and entire peoples, not just individuals or groups of individuals as we're led to believe.

What are your opinions on Eisenhower Death camps?

[rhiannon]

Let's hope that White guilt's not contagious. I agree that the treatment of the Native Americans was shameful, and the Trail of Tears was a black mark on the historical record. You need to realize that both European Americans and Native Americans were guilty of atrocities. The frontier wan't a New Age PC Disney cartoon. Some of my White ancestors might have killed Cherokee, and some of my Cherokee ancestors might have killed Whites. I don't feel responsibility or shame for either scenario. Something tells me that you would feel guilt just for the former. I doubt that this would be so if Native Americans burned your cabin to the ground after they slaughtered all of the inhabitants. I also wonder if you feel the same sense of guilt for what your European forebears did to your other European forebears. I wonder if you're outraged over what Genghis Khan did to Europeans. My guess, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that it bothers you only when minority groups are the victims. I get that impression from your posts, as well as your reactions to them.
You're wrong.
Yes...both groups were guilty of atrocities....but the NAs were the defenders against who they saw as encroaching foreigners that wanted their land. Looks like history backs that up, doesn't it? Who has that land now? Not the NAs.

Offensive and Defensive are two different aspects of violence...they are clearly not the same.

There are some people on here who say whites were in the New World before the Indians. If they were...and yes, I know about the Viking discovery of North America some several hundred years before 1492:rolleyes:...but if whites were here first in any real number and this was their land first....we'd have known about it in the historical record. The fact is, North America belonged to the Indian peoples that made their homes here for thousands of years....then we showed up and started trying to take their lands out from under em'

Not cool. They fought back....and sometimes they fought freaking dirty to boot.

Let me make something clear to you, Bobcat:
you don't know me and what I think or why I think it. I don't fucking like violence and killing.... EVER...unless it is justifiable self defense of ones' self or one's loved ones. or....unless it is to punish POS murdering scum.

I feel shame on behalf of the brutality of humanity. I feel direct shame when those committing such brutal acts are indeed, my ancestors. I don't care who they're doing it to, either. You can call me a wimpy woman or carry on about how women are best left out of politics or some such shit if you disagree with me....but do not be so presumptuous as to think for me. It is uncouth and uncool.

Thank you very much;)

ETA: I do realize that various Indian tribes fought amongst themselves also....but this is not the topic of my reply and is not of any relevance here.

[Bobcat Fraser]

I'm not sure what you mean by "Eisenhower death camps". I didn't watch the YouTube clip. He condemned and disclosed the concentration camps. He turned over the rock and made sure that other people saw what was under it.

[Stefan]

I'm not sure what you mean by "Eisenhower death camps". I didn't watch the YouTube clip. He condemned and disclosed the concentration camps. He turned over the rock and made sure that other people saw what was under it.

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


Other Losses is a 1989 book by Canadian writer James Bacque, in which Bacque alleges that U.S. General Dwight Eisenhower intentionally caused the deaths by starvation or exposure of around a million German prisoners of war held in Western internment camps briefly after the Second World War. Other Losses charges that hundreds of thousands of German prisoners that had fled the Eastern front were designated as "Disarmed Enemy Forces" in order to avoid recognition under the third Geneva Convention, for the purpose of carrying out their deaths through disease or slow starvation. Other Losses cites documents in the U.S. National Archives and interviews with people who stated they witnessed the events. The book claims that there was a "method of genocide" in the banning of Red Cross inspectors, the returning of food aid, the policy regarding shelter building, and soldier ration policy.
The book has been extensively criticized by mainstream historians, with one stating that it "makes charges that are demonstrably absurd". Stephen Ambrose and seven other historians examined the book soon after its publication, and came to the conclusion that it was inaccurate and the product of conspiracy theory. Several historians, including the former senior historian of the United States Army Center of Military History, Colonel Ernest F. Fisher, who was involved in the 1945 investigations into the allegations of misconduct by U.S. troops in Germany and who wrote the book's foreword, argue that the claims are accurate.

http://www.bollyn.com/public/Eisenhower_Death_Camp.jpg

[Bobcat Fraser]

You're wrong.
Yes...both groups were guilty of atrocities....but the NAs were the defenders against who they saw as encroaching foreigners that wanted their land. Looks like history backs that up, doesn't it? Who has that land now? Not the NAs.

Offensive and Defensive are two different aspects of violence...they are clearly not the same.

There are some people on here who say whites were in the New World before the Indians. If they were...and yes, I know about the Viking discovery of North America some several hundred years before 1492:rolleyes:...but if whites were here first in any real number and this was their land first....we'd have known about it in the historical record. The fact is, North America belonged to the Indian peoples that made their homes here for thousands of years....then we showed up and started trying to take their lands out from under em'

Not cool. They fought back....and sometimes they fought freaking dirty to boot.

Let me make something clear to you, Bobcat:
you don't know me and what I think or why I think it. I don't fucking like violence and killing.... EVER...unless it is justifiable self defense of ones' self or one's loved ones. or....unless it is to punish POS murdering scum.

I feel shame on behalf of the brutality of humanity. I feel direct shame when those committing such brutal acts are indeed, my ancestors. I don't care who they're doing it to, either. You can call me a wimpy woman or carry on about how women are best left out of politics or some such shit if you disagree with me....but do not be so presumptuous as to think for me. It is uncouth and uncool.

Thank you very much;)

ETA: I do realize that various Indian tribes fought amongst themselves also....but this is not the topic of my reply and is not of any relevance here.

Nice dodge on your part. I'll ask the question once again, and you're welcome to answer or evade it. I don't really care. What would you do if Native Americans burned your cabin to the ground after killing the inhabitants? Some of them rightfully were called savages. They murdered and tortured White women and children in ways that would turn your stomach. They deserved to die for it. You can try to justify it with benefit of time, which aids the judgmental attitudes of one-sided advocates of White guilt. BTW, some settlers *bought* land from the Native Americans. Check out the Watauga Association, for example. You're welcome to your mythology and propaganda. Some of us know that the story is more complicated than your "boo, Europeans, yeah, minorities" version of life.

[Bobcat Fraser]

Stefan, I'll defer to the criticism of historians who know more than I do about the subject. The book sounds like a hit piece on a great man. There may be a good reason as to why I didn't know much about the accusation and allegation, which likely would garner more press if it had merit. I don't believe it.

[Stefan]

Nice dodge on your part. I'll ask the question once again, and you're welcome to answer or evade it. I don't really care. What would you do if Native Americans burned your cabin to the ground after killing the inhabitants? Some of them rightfully were called savages. They murdered and tortured White women and children in ways that would turn your stomach. They deserved to die for it. You can try to justify it with benefit of time, which aids the judgmental attitudes of one-sided advocates of White guilt. BTW, some settlers *bought* land from the Native Americans. Check out the Watauga Association, for example. You're welcome to your mythology and propaganda. Some of us know that the story is more complicated than your "boo, Europeans, yeah, minorities" version of life.

Couldn't the same be said about Germans and their response to the Jews, who were practically leeching off the German economic system during the depression, to sustain themselves? In that case, was the holocaust against Jews justified? I take the opposite approach from rhiannon on this, and see these historical events as historical events solely, however there is a clear point in such a double standard I'd like to point out. The Germans believed the Jews were acting like parasites, and had responded to the parasite by separating it from the body or nation. I personally don't believe much in the gas chambers and ovens, as they seem like very inefficient ways to commit genocide, and the Germans needed all workers they could have in the war.

[Stefan]

Stefan, I'll defer to the criticism of historians who know more than I do about the subject. The book sounds like a hit piece on a great man. There may be a good reason as to why I didn't know much about the accusation and allegation, which likely would garner more press if it had merit. I don't believe it.

It didn't gain press because the allies were the ones who won the war, that's all. It was most likely covered up.

Just look at the critic and then the supporter. The critic just says "it's ridiculous." Alright, why is it ridiculous? How is it any more ridiculous than the holocaust? Why should I believe in the holocaust, but not this?


The book has been extensively criticized by mainstream historians, with one stating that it "makes charges that are demonstrably absurd". Stephen Ambrose and seven other historians examined the book soon after its publication, and came to the conclusion that it was inaccurate and the product of conspiracy theory. Several historians, including the former senior historian of the United States Army Center of Military History, Colonel Ernest F. Fisher, who was involved in the 1945 investigations into the allegations of misconduct by U.S. troops in Germany and who wrote the book's foreword, argue that the claims are accurate.

^ This guy seems like he would know what he's talking about, considering his position.

[rhiannon]

Nice dodge on your part. I'll ask the question once again, and you're welcome to answer or evade it. I don't really care. What would you do if Native Americans burned your cabin to the ground after killing the inhabitants? Some of them rightfully were called savages. They murdered and tortured White women and children in ways that would turn your stomach. They deserved to die for it. You can try to justify it with benefit of time, which aids the judgmental attitudes of one-sided advocates of White guilt. BTW, some settlers *bought* land from the Native Americans. Check out the Watauga Association, for example. You're welcome to your mythology and propaganda. Some of us know that the story is more complicated than your "boo, Europeans, yeah, minorities" version of life.

What would I do? WTF do you think I would do? Roll over and take it?:rolleyes:
I would fight back.
What does this have to do with anything?

I asked you to stop thinking for me. Is that too difficult for you? You don't see me trying to predict your answers or thoughts.

Whites got here after NAs were here. Whites acted offensively...the Indians acted defensively....as in...they acted in retaliation...or think of it as a counterstrike....and retaliation was ugly. There would have been little to none of it had we not been here trying to take their land, though.

You are going to sit here and tell me that no Indian women and children were killed by white settlers?

Yeah fucking RIGHT. I don't think so.

As for the settlers that bought their land fair and square?
:thumb001::thumb001:

Now please excuse me while I go cheer for some minority murdering scum as they prepare to boil my children alive:rolleyes:

[Contra Mundum]

It's easy to feel white guilt today when we don't have to fight and scratch to survive, but settlers didn't have time to feel guilt, they were fighting for survival and we benefited from their sacrifice. Any white person that feels guilty about what whites did in the past should give all their property to an Amerindian.

[rhiannon]

It's easy to feel white guilt today when we don't have to fight and scratch to survive, but settlers didn't have time to feel guilt, they were fighting for survival and we benefited from their sacrifice. Any white person that feels guilty about what whites did in the past should give all their property to an Amerindian.

I can't change history any more than you or anyone else. It is what it is. This whole issue presents a big moral dilemma for me, sorry. I can never fully feel totally accepting and happy about things my ancestors may or may not have done to NAs. I am not a violent person....and not one to try and take something that doesn't belong to me. If my ancestors in the 1600s were engaged in taking lands that were not theirs to begin with....it was wrong for them to do it. It would have been fine if they were living side by side and not attempting to usurp the Indian presence altogether as would have happened in the Trail of Tears, for example.

The fact is, I don't know exactly what they did or what they were involved in. Yet, for whatever their actions entailed....I am here today because of it. It is a precarious moral dilemma for me. I do not push my own feelings about this on anyone else....and I will be damned to hell if any one on here is going to get on my case for having somewhat ambivalent opinions about this issue.

I respect everyone's opinions on here and would ask for the same in return:)

[Insuperable]

Things would be way better today if there was not WW2.
People praise it and because of it it is impossible to use the nationalist card without being labeled a Nazi

[Bobcat Fraser]

It didn't gain press because the allies were the ones who won the war, that's all. It was most likely covered up.

Just look at the critic and then the supporter. The critic just says "it's ridiculous." Alright, why is it ridiculous? How is it any more ridiculous than the holocaust? Why should I believe in the holocaust, but not this?



^ This guy seems like he would know what he's talking about, considering his position.

There's more real evidence for the Holocaust. Sorry, I just don't buy the claim that Eisenhower was involved in these kinds of war crimes. In today's sensationalistic and tabloid culture, it would be hard to hide such actions, especially when you take into account the fact that tearing down heroes is something of an American pastime. I realize that I won't be able to convince you of the veracity of the accounts of the mass murder of people in concentration camps, so I'll let the Energizer Bunny take it from here.

[Contra Mundum]

I can't change history any more than you or anyone else. It is what it is. This whole issue presents a big moral dilemma for me, sorry. I can never fully feel totally accepting and happy about things my ancestors may or may not have done to NAs. I am not a violent person....and not one to try and take something that doesn't belong to me. If my ancestors in the 1600s were engaged in taking lands that were not theirs to begin with....it was wrong for them to do it. It would have been fine if they were living side by side and not attempting to usurp the Indian presence altogether as would have happened in the Trail of Tears, for example.

The fact is, I don't know exactly what they did or what they were involved in. Yet, for whatever their actions entailed....I am here today because of it. It is a precarious moral dilemma for me. I do not push my own feelings about this on anyone else....and I will be damned to hell if any one on here is going to get on my case for having somewhat ambivalent opinions about this issue.

I respect everyone's opinions on here and would ask for the same in return:)

American Indians don't obsess over the past. They're probably the only minority group with a legitimate grip, yet they complain the least.


An Indian's view of "White Guilt".
http://www.badeagle.com/html/white_women.html

What’s Up With White Women?

by David A. Yeagley
Originally published at FrontPageMagazine.com

"Look, Dr, Yeagley, I don’t see anything about my culture to be proud of. It’s all nothing. My race is just nothing."

The girl was white. She was tall and pretty, with amber hair and brown eyes. For convenience’ sake, let’s call her "Rachel."

I had been leading a class on social psychology, in which we discussed patriotism – what it means to be a people or a nation. The discussion had been quite lively. But when Rachel spoke, everyone fell silent.

"Look at your culture," she said to me. "Look at American Indian tradition. Now I think that’s really great. You have something to be proud of. My culture is nothing."

"You’re not proud to be American?" I asked.

"Oh, I’m happy to be American, but I’m not proud of how America came about."

Her choice of words was telling. She was "happy" to be an American. But not "proud" of it.

On one level, I wasn’t surprised. I knew the head of our American History department at Oklahoma State University-OKC, and I recognized his hackneyed liberal jargon in Rachel’s words. She had taken one of his courses, with predictable results.

Yet, I was still stunned. Her words disturbed and offended me in a way that I could not quite enunciate.

I could hardly concentrate the rest of the day. I lay awake that night thinking about what she had said.

On the surface, she was paying me a compliment. She was praising my Indian culture, at the expense of her own. Why, then, did it feel so much like a slap in the face?

As I lay awake that night, I thought of an old story by Kay Boyle, written in 1941, called "Defeat." It’s about the French women in the German-occupied village of Pontcharra. All the French men were away at war. It was the 14th of July, Bastille Day, when Frenchmen were usually proud to be French. The village women, however, chose that day to give in to the German men.

They did it innocently enough. The women just wanted to wear their fancy holiday dresses. They wanted to drink and dance. And the Germans were the only men around with whom they could do it.

So they gave in.

The Cheyenne people have a saying: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground.

That’s what I thought about as I lay there, with Rachel’s words running over and over in my mind. "My race is just nothing…. " she had said. "My culture is nothing."

After class, one older white student, a husband and father, had exchanged glances with me on the way out. He said to me in a low voice, "I don’t want her on my team!"

I understood what he meant. Frankly, I wouldn’t want her on my team either. A woman who won’t be true to her own people certainly won’t be true to someone else’s.

When Rachel denounced her people, she did it with the serene self-confidence of a High Priestess reciting a liturgy. She said it without fear of criticism or censure. And she received none. The other students listened in silence, their eyes moving timidly back and forth between me and Rachel, as if unsure which of us constituted a higher authority.

My goodness, if an Indian woman had said such a thing in front of Indian men, her ears would have burned for a week!

By giving in to the German conquerors, those French women in the Kay Boyle story had betrayed their men. But it was an understandable betrayal. Their men were gone. The Germans were in command.

Who had conquered Rachel’s people? What had led her to disrespect them? Why did she behave like a woman of a defeated tribe?

They say that a warrior is measured by the strength of his enemies. As an Indian, I am proud of the fact that it took the mightiest nation on earth to defeat me.

But I don’t feel so proud when I listen to Rachel. It gives me no solace to see the white man self-destruct. If Rachel’s people are "nothing," what does that say about mine?

I believe in my Comanche people. I know that someday we’ll stand as equals before the white man, strong, prosperous and self-sufficient. But we won’t get there by listening to empty praise from guilty white women. We’ll get there by studying the white man’s ways and learning to be strong as he is.

[Stefan]

There's more real evidence for the Holocaust.

I'm sure there is more, accessible (i.e non-destroyed) evidence, of course.


Sorry, I just don't buy the claim that Eisenhower was involved in these kinds of war crimes. In today's sensationalistic and tabloid culture, it would be hard to hide such actions, especially when you take into account the fact that tearing down heroes is something of an American pastime.

Why don't you? People do things like this all the time. Even seemingly good people. Most of the Germans thought Hitler was a fantastic man, for example. ;) As for discovering something, the man who wrote the book did. He even listed credible sources, anecdotal evidence from those who investigated German mistreatment, records, etc. Is the lead investigator of German mistreatment lieing to us? Why would he be motivated to do such a thing?



I realize that I won't be able to convince you of the veracity of the accounts of the mass murder of people in concentration camps, so I'll let the Energizer Bunny take it from here.

You can. There was a time when I believed in such things. Maybe I've forgotten the facts? It just seems illogical to me that Germans would systematically kill off their workforce when it was already dieing more quickly from disease and hunger, and it was crucial to winning the war. If they just wanted to kill the Jews, why not just shoot them on sight?

[Bobcat Fraser]

What would I do? WTF do you think I would do? Roll over and take it?:rolleyes:
I would fight back.
What does this have to do with anything?

I asked you to stop thinking for me. Is that too difficult for you? You don't see me trying to predict your answers or thoughts.

Whites got here after NAs were here. Whites acted offensively...the Indians acted defensively....as in...they acted in retaliation...or think of it as a counterstrike....and retaliation was ugly. There would have been little to none of it had we not been here trying to take their land, though.

You are going to sit here and tell me that no Indian women and children were killed by white settlers?

Yeah fucking RIGHT. I don't think so.

As for the settlers that bought their land fair and square?
:thumb001::thumb001:

Now please excuse me while I go cheer for some minority murdering scum as they prepare to boil my children alive:rolleyes:

You just explained why some of the settlers attacked some of the Native Americans. It was for defense and justice. Of course, both sides were guilty of atrocities. I said so in my first post. I never said that settlers never murdered Native American women and children. They certainly did. Now, please don't put words in *my* mouth. I'm just giving a side to the story that is censored or ignored by people who judge the past through the lens of the present.

[rhiannon]

American Indians don't obsess over the past. They're probably the only minority group with a legitimate grip, yet they complain the least.


An Indian's view of "White Guilt".
http://www.badeagle.com/html/white_women.html

What’s Up With White Women?

by David A. Yeagley
Originally published at FrontPageMagazine.com

CM:
This is not as simplified as you may believe. Here is something I would like to share with you:

This past June, I just completed my Master's degree. The final and most comprehensive part of the work I had to do to get the degree involved a lengthy project that for me, focused specifically on some of the health issues faced by NAs. The impact of Historical Trauma (http://historicaltrauma.com/) has been insidious for the NAs, and it has been a topic for research by both NA and non NA healthcare and social workers.

Of course, there are some individuals who may fall outside the curve, but the facts are that NAs as a people do indeed, still experience profound impact in their daily lives of what has come to reveal itself as a very real and well documented phenomenon. Studying the relationship between Historical Trauma and its influence on health and lifestyle behaviors in the Native American population formed just a portion of the project I completed.

Past, present, and future are intertwined for all of us. Culturally speaking, the past is a very significant aspect of NA folkways and mores.:)

[rhiannon]

You just explained why some of the settlers attacked some of the Native Americans. It was for defense and justice. Of course, both sides were guilty of atrocities. I said so in my first post. I never said that settlers never murdered Native American women and children. They certainly did. Now, please don't put words in *my* mouth. I'm just giving a side to the story that is censored or ignored by people who judge the past through the lens of the present.

Okay. Fair enough. Of course everyone has the right to engage in self defense! I don't like being told it only bothers me if minorities are harmed, though. This is simply not true.:)

[Anusiya]

Things would be way better today if there was not WW2.
People praise it and because of it it is impossible to use the nationalist card without being labeled a Nazi

I am afraid there is no easy way through this. It happened, and it is a part of human history/nature. And perhaps it's better like this, since younger and current generations get to enjoy far better lives than those of their ancestors.

[Insuperable]

I am afraid there is no easy way through this. It happened, and it is a part of human history/nature. And perhaps it's better like this, since younger and current generations get to enjoy far better lives than those of their ancestors.

Why would not they if lets say the WWW2 ( not the one on the Pacific but perhaps even that one would not happen ) never happened?

[Anusiya]

Why would not they if lets say the WWW2 ( not the one on the Pacific but perhaps even that one would not happen ) never happened?

Because as human beings we never have to give in to oblivion. These things happened, were thoroughly documented and can give us insight as to what we are capable of, for the better or the worst. How do we know about the Peloponesian Wars? Because one person decided to write about them, and we still give credit to him for passing on this information. Why not now?

[Arthas]

As a Fascist Nazi-sympathising Mischling, this thread is a little confusing for me, lol

[Bobcat Fraser]

Okay. Fair enough. Of course everyone has the right to engage in self defense! I don't like being told it only bothers me if minorities are harmed, though. This is simply not true.:)

I just get that impression from what you post and thank. I apologize if I was wrong. You're right. I can't read your mind (as far as you know).:D

[rhiannon]

I just get that impression from what you post and thank. I apologize if I was wrong. You're right. I can't read your mind (as far as you know).:D

Bobcat,
I don't like all the bashing that goes on in here against various non-European groups. Obviously, I am not offended if the points being made are points I find myself in agreement with. One example that comes to mind are the recent news stories posted about Muslims in Europe demanding that various countries become Islamic states. To that, I say HELL FUCKING NO!

In the greater scheme, there really is good and bad in all ethnicities. If certain posts are making relevant points that favor the underdog (in this forum...the underdogs are non European, for example), I am going to thank them most of the time.

The reasons you tend to think I care more for minorities being harmed than my own people is simply because I might talk more about it in here as a means of providing balance to all the posts which show very little no compassion at all. It doesn't mean I only care about minorities, though. I care about all decent people as fellow human beings. Hope that explains better:)

In general, violence is wrong. I hate it. All crimes deserve equal time and media attention....and all criminals deserve equal punishment for equal crimes committed under similar circumstance.

When crimes are against children....I become seethingly angry at any person that could find a means to justify said crimes. Because I have children of my own, my heart is big and wishes not a single child would ever suffer again the pain of hunger, abuse, etc.

People on here poke fun of me for that....but I don't care one bit. :)

[Styggnacke]

What would your grandfathers, who fought in World War II, say?
This is what the British veterans say: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229643/This-isnt-Britain-fought-say-unknown-warriors-WWII.html

[Jedthehumanoid]

Bobcat,
I don't like all the bashing that goes on in here against various non-European groups. Obviously, I am not offended if the points being made are points I find myself in agreement with. One example that comes to mind are the recent news stories posted about Muslims in Europe demanding that various countries become Islamic states. To that, I say HELL FUCKING NO!

In the greater scheme, there really is good and bad in all ethnicities. If certain posts are making relevant points that favor the underdog (in this forum...the underdogs are non European, for example), I am going to thank them most of the time.

The reasons you tend to think I care more for minorities being harmed than my own people is simply because I might talk more about it in here as a means of providing balance to all the posts which show very little no compassion at all. It doesn't mean I only care about minorities, though. I care about all decent people as fellow human beings. Hope that explains better:)

In general, violence is wrong. I hate it. All crimes deserve equal time and media attention....and all criminals deserve equal punishment for equal crimes committed under similar circumstance.

When crimes are against children....I become seethingly angry at any person that could find a means to justify said crimes. Because I have children of my own, my heart is big and wishes not a single child would ever suffer again the pain of hunger, abuse, etc.

People on here poke fun of me for that....but I don't care one bit. :)

For God's sake stop being so reasonable when all I want to do is hate Americans;)

[Bobcat Fraser]

This is what the British veterans say: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229643/This-isnt-Britain-fought-say-unknown-warriors-WWII.html

They made good points. They reminded me of some of our veterans. They're all sick and tired of New World Order nonsense. They fought for freedom, not globalism.

[Anusiya]

As a Fascist Nazi-sympathising Mischling, this thread is a little confusing for me, lol

:picard2: if you are part Jewish then perhaps you would like to re-evaluate your views. :D

[Arthas]

:picard2: if you are part Jewish then perhaps you would like to re-evaluate your views. :D

It may be a little ironic, but I am anti-Hitler and, for the most part, anti-anti-semitism. As an ideology itself, National Socialism makes a lot of sense to me, regardless of my ethnic origins. :)