Who are the real Nazis?

[lotr10]

Today’s white supremacists also claim to be nationalist, but they obviously are not. They use nationalism as a cover to hide their brand of hate and ignorance.

Look there are extreme and odious examples of various forms of nationalism run amok. But they represent a small minority of how nationalism plays out in the political arena. Overwhelmingly nationalism is a force for good that enables complex nation states to form, stabilize and thrive.

Nationalism works because it doesn't go against human nature it works alongside our nature. Humans are hardwired through evolutionary biology to be tribal in nature. Nationalism through the concept of patriotism enables practical manifestations of the nation state from humanity's tribal foundation.

In contrast socialism & communism go against basic human nature. They defy evolutionary biology to try to make us what we aren't, That's why they fail and we're yet to see a fully successful communist or socialist state. On the other hand nationalist states are the norm and have been mostly very successful - including the USA.

Nationalism is also flexible. It can coexist with and enhance democracies, constitutional republics and even monarchies.

 

[irish_buffalo]

Look there are extreme and odious examples of various forms of nationalism run amok. But they represent a small minority of how nationalism plays out in the political arena. Overwhelmingly nationalism is a force for good that enables complex nation states to form, stabilize and thrive.

Nationalism works because it doesn't go against human nature it works alongside our nature. Humans are hardwired through evolutionary biology to be tribal in nature. Nationalism through the concept of patriotism enables practical manifestations of the nation state from humanity's tribal foundation.

In contrast socialism & communism go against basic human nature. They defy evolutionary biology to try to make us what we aren't, That's why they fail and we're yet to see a fully successful communist or socialist state. On the other hand nationalist states are the norm and have been mostly very successful - including the USA.

Nationalism is also flexible. It can coexist with and enhance democracies, constitutional republics and even monarchies.

 

[lotr10]

Socialism isn’t violent, or atheistic, or necessarily dictatorship. Communism is nothing more than a police state forcing socialism on the masses. That’s very different than true socialism. The people voluntarily cooperate with real socialism. Nobody forces them. They choose it. Socialism just doesn’t work. You could make a case for communism working fairly well. It did make Russia a world power. Dictatorships have historically been pretty effective.

When you try to force people to go against their basic interests some form of violence becomes inevitable.

 

[lotr10]

Care to be specific?

What part do you see that is particularly dumb?

Just because you've been duped into believing that "nationalism" is bad doesn't mean it is. Nationalism is patriotism. But the left, which tends to hate the concept of patriotism found that they could attack nationalism by tying it to both the Nazis and patriotism. I'm surprised you fell for it.

 

[lotr10]

For those claiming that the Nazis were nationalist and not socialist with a system closer to the Western Republics then to the Soviet Union ask yourself this simple question: Could Hitler have signed a non-aggression pact with France or Great Britain or the USA that would allow him to invade a country?

Because Nazi Germany signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union that cleared the way for Germany's invasion of Poland. In fact this treaty also gave the Soviets half of Poland, the Baltic States and Finland (if they could take it). That the Nazis and Soviets could agree to such a treaty is not surprising given that they were peas from the same pod.

Oh and in answer to my question - NO the French, British or Americans, all of which could be viewed as NATIONALIST in 1939, would never have signed such a treaty.

 

[Redandgold]

Look there are extreme and odious examples of various forms of nationalism run amok. But they represent a small minority of how nationalism plays out in the political arena. Overwhelmingly nationalism is a force for good that enables complex nation states to form, stabilize and thrive.

Nationalism works because it doesn't go against human nature it works alongside our nature. Humans are hardwired through evolutionary biology to be tribal in nature. Nationalism through the concept of patriotism enables practical manifestations of the nation state from humanity's tribal foundation.

In contrast socialism & communism go against basic human nature. They defy evolutionary biology to try to make us what we aren't, That's why they fail and we're yet to see a fully successful communist or socialist state. On the other hand nationalist states are the norm and have been mostly very successful - including the USA.

Nationalism is also flexible. It can coexist with and enhance democracies, constitutional republics and even monarchies.

Socialism isn’t forced. It’s voluntary. Communism is forced. Given that modern nation states don’t last that long, I would have to say that the Soviet experience from 1917 until the mid 80’s was pretty successful, at least by some measures. I agree with you on nationalism, except for the phonies who only use the term for questionable purposes. White supremacists.

 

[isadore]

I never said you couldnt be both. But that wasnt the case with Nazis.

Would nationalists impose a scorched earth policy against their own country?

You speaking of the Nazis

They were certainly not Nationalists

91#
Now you say ‘I never said you could not be both (Nationalist and Nazi), but the Nazis were not.’
That is just unbelievably idiotic.
As to “scorched earth”, retreating armies have been doing that for millennia.

 

[isadore]

For those claiming that the Nazis were nationalist and not socialist with a system closer to the Western Republics then to the Soviet Union ask yourself this simple question: Could Hitler have signed a non-aggression pact with France or Great Britain or the USA that would allow him to invade a country?

Because Nazi Germany signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union that cleared the way for Germany's invasion of Poland. In fact this treaty also gave the Soviets half of Poland, the Baltic States and Finland (if they could take it). That the Nazis and Soviets could agree to such a treaty is not surprising given that they were peas from the same pod.

Oh and in answer to my question - NO the French, British or Americans, all of which could be viewed as NATIONALIST in 1939, would never have signed such a treaty.

gosh really
wow
You do know that Britain's Navy was historically the most important part of strength and defense for that island nation. In 1935 the British signed the Anglo-German Naval Agreement with the NAZIS about the size of their navies.
So gosh if they would do that, they would have been willing to sign a non-aggression pact with them.

 

[isadore]

The Nazis were first and foremost socialists. They simply added a racial spin to that narrative.

Do you think labor unions existed in the Soviet Union or Mao's China?

I get that it stinks for every self respecting socialist to know that the Nazis were simply a branch of socialism. That's why you guys constantly twist history to try to connect the Nazis to capitalism and Christianity.

No the Nazis were first and foremost Nationalist racists.
The execution of their racial policies over the 12 year existence of the 3rd Reich demonstrate that with the 12 million dead
Heck and what kind of "first and foremost socialist" privatize the major industries, that were state run under the previous government, banking, shipping, rail lines, shipyards. Privatizing banks, man that is downright capitalistic.

 

[utsherman]

I'm amazed that some folks still confuse (capital N) Nationalism with national sovereignty, national identity, national pride, etc.

 

[isadore]

Now you're just being ignorant of the Roman world.

First many of Romes great engineering feats from the roads to aqueducts were built by the Army. Second there were numerous skilled labor guilds that contributed to building everything from the Coliseum to the Pantheon.

Sure slaves provided much of the grunt labor. And since the Romans never could figure out how to get past slaves as tools their infrastructure couldn't have been built without them.

But a billion slaves couldn't have figured out how to build an aqueduct to carry water for miles or roads that would last a millennium. That was the genius of Roman engineering & architecture.

And yes China & India contributed to human civilization. But the modern world is largely a creation of Western Civilization which owes it's existence to the Creeks & Romans.

Gosh a ruddies, sorry I do not know very much about the “Creek” contribution to western civilization. And it does seem strange you again chose to ignore the roles of the Near and Middle East in the growth of that civilization in architecture, science, mathematics, philosophy, religion. Jesus Christ was not a “Creek.”
Your easy dismissal of the role of slave labor in the architectural triumphs of the period as “grunt work” is cold hearted in the extreme. And some of your statements about that labor force were false. All those great architectural plans would have come to nothing without the sacrifice and suffering of untold slaves.
“Building the Coliseum took over 100,000 slaves working a decade.”

Building the Colosseum: How to Engineer an Empire

Building the Colosseum was no easy task — here's a look at the history, construction and legacy of this legendary amphitheater.

now.northropgrumman.com

Roman roads were built in part by slave labor.
The Roman Empire: in the First Century. The Roman Empire. Social Order. Slaves & Freemen | PBS
Roman aqueducts were built by slave labor.

Sign in - Google Accounts

Given your thought process Antebellum slavery would have been justified by the fact that some of the shirts and dresses made from the cotton picked by slaves looked great.

 

[lotr10]

gosh really
wow
You do know that Britain's Navy was historically the most important part of strength and defense for that island nation. In 1935 the British signed the Anglo-German Naval Agreement with the NAZIS about the size of their navies.
So gosh if they would do that, they would have been willing to sign a non-aggression pact with them.

We signed a treaty with Japan limiting the number of warships - so what. If you think signing a treaty with the Nazis to limit the size of each country's Navy is the same as signing a treaty that gives the green light for the Nazis to invade Poland and gives the Soviets half of Poland in return then you're misguided.

Hitler & Stalin did a deal that no one in the West would have done. Nazi Germany & the Soviet Union were able to do the deal because it was in both their interests as aggressive, expansionist powers.

 

[lotr10]

Gosh a ruddies, sorry I do not know very much about the “Creek” contribution to western civilization. And it does seem strange you again chose to ignore the roles of the Near and Middle East in the growth of that civilization in architecture, science, mathematics, philosophy, religion. Jesus Christ was not a “Creek.”
Your easy dismissal of the role of slave labor in the architectural triumphs of the period as “grunt work” is cold hearted in the extreme. And some of your statements about that labor force were false. All those great architectural plans would have come to nothing without the sacrifice and suffering of untold slaves.
“Building the Coliseum took over 100,000 slaves working a decade.”

Building the Colosseum: How to Engineer an Empire

Building the Colosseum was no easy task — here's a look at the history, construction and legacy of this legendary amphitheater.

now.northropgrumman.com

Roman roads were built in part by slave labor.
The Roman Empire: in the First Century. The Roman Empire. Social Order. Slaves & Freemen | PBS
Roman aqueducts were built by slave labor.

Sign in - Google Accounts

Given your thought process Antebellum slavery would have been justified by the fact that some of the shirts and dresses made from the cotton picked by slaves looked great.

Where to begin. So the slaves designed and did the engineering necessary to build the aqueducts, roads and the coliseum? Sure the grunt labor was often, but not exclusively, provided by slaves. But these wonders were designed and created by Roman civilization.

And for the record Slavery was ubiquitous in the ancient world. EVERYONE considered it a normal practice.

And as far as my dismissal of slave labor being "cold hearted", sorry to offend your delicate sensitivities but you do know we're talking about THE ANCIENT WORLD here. They weren't as into feelings back then.

And your comments on Antebellum slavery are just plain sophomoric. The South lost the Civil war because their economy depended on Slaves which meant it was grossly inferior to the North. Slavery was an economic dead end that stifled innovation. The Romans took it as far as it could go.

 

[lotr10]

I'm amazed that some folks still confuse (capital N) Nationalism with national sovereignty, national identity, national pride, etc.

All these things are a subset or outcomes of Nationalism.

Back in the day we were taught that a little nationalism was a good thing and necessary to meld together nation states. But that you never wanted to go to far with it. It was like installing self esteem in your kids. You have to do it but you don't want to give them to much. Patriotism was a natural outgrowth from nationalism.

But socialists hated the concept of "patriotism" and attacked it whenever they could. The problem they faced was that most people liked patriotism. So they switched from attacking patriotism to attacking nationalism (which is just a broader form of patriotism). Now this had legs as they could claim nationalism = Nazism.

But if you dig down with a socialist they will concede that they hate everything you listed - national sovereignty, national identity, national pride. To them these are all bad things.

 

[Redandgold]

Care to be specific?

What part do you see that is particularly dumb?

Just because you've been duped into believing that "nationalism" is bad doesn't mean it is. Nationalism is patriotism. But the left, which tends to hate the concept of patriotism found that they could attack nationalism by tying it to both the Nazis and patriotism. I'm surprised you fell for it.

It’s not bad, unless used by groups like nazis or other white supremacists to hide their true intentions. Depends on if it is sincere or not.

 

[isadore]

Where to begin. So the slaves designed and did the engineering necessary to build the aqueducts, roads and the coliseum? Sure the grunt labor was often, but not exclusively, provided by slaves. But these wonders were designed and created by Roman civilization.

And for the record Slavery was ubiquitous in the ancient world. EVERYONE considered it a normal practice.

And as far as my dismissal of slave labor being "cold hearted", sorry to offend your delicate sensitivities but you do know we're talking about THE ANCIENT WORLD here. They weren't as into feelings back then.

And your comments on Antebellum slavery are just plain sophomoric. The South lost the Civil war because their economy depended on Slaves which meant it was grossly inferior to the North. Slavery was an economic dead end that stifled innovation. The Romans took it as far as it could go.

1. You were caught making a series of false statements claiming slave labor was not used in the construction projects of the Roman Empire.
2. As to your statement about “feelings”, it is unbelievable. You do not think slaves suffered in died in the ancient world or you are indifferent to their suffering, considering them less human than us. The first opinion is ill founded ignorance, the second cruel. The fact that the actions happened in past does not make their suffering less. So slavery was normal then. That does not make it right or their suffering less. At times burning witches was normal, putting Jews in ghettos was normal and mass enslavement was normal. They were not right and should not be supported or excused as you do.
3. None of your “great” projects would have been built without slave labor no matter how supposed brilliant or skilled their designers were.
4. The situation in Rome and the Antebellum South were analogous, you are just too thick or sympathetic to the regimes to see it.

 

[isadore]

We signed a treaty with Japan limiting the number of warships - so what. If you think signing a treaty with the Nazis to limit the size of each country's Navy is the same as signing a treaty that gives the green light for the Nazis to invade Poland and gives the Soviets half of Poland in return then you're misguided.

Hitler & Stalin did a deal that no one in the West would have done. Nazi Germany & the Soviet Union were able to do the deal because it was in both their interests as aggressive, expansionist powers.

A treaty about Naval size was more vital to Britain than a non-aggression pact. The British Navy was essential to Britain's existence as it had been for hundreds of years. It protected Britain from the Spanish Armada, Napoleon and in 1940-41 from the Nazis. If Britain would sign a Naval treaty with the Nazis, it would have signed a Non-Aggression.
Are you kidding?
Do you really think Stanley Baldwin or Neville Chamberlain would not have signed a Non-Aggression Pact. Or for that matter Daladier from France.
Heck they jumped through hoops to sign the Munich Pact.

 

[lotr10]

A treaty about Naval size was more vital to Britain than a non-aggression pact. The British Navy was essential to Britain's existence as it had been for hundreds of years. It protected Britain from the Spanish Armada, Napoleon and in 1940-41 from the Nazis. If Britain would sign a Naval treaty with the Nazis, it would have signed a Non-Aggression.
Are you kidding?
Do you really think Stanley Baldwin or Neville Chamberlain would not have signed a Non-Aggression Pact. Or for that matter Daladier from France.
Heck they jumped through hoops to sign the Munich Pact.

To be clear they called it a non-aggression pact but it really was a divide the spoils pact. The Soviet/German treaty cleared the way for Germany and the Soviet Union to invade and carve up Poland without risking war with each other.

And no Chamberlain would not have signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler explicitly agreeing to Germany invading another country. It was the Chamberlain government that went to war with Germany over the invasion of Poland.

The Munich pact simply involved the return of German majority regions of Czechoslovakia (the Sudetenland) to Germany in return for Hitler promising NOT to invade the rest of that country. Hitler lied and broke his promise and the rest is history. You can accuse Chamberlain of being naive, which he was, but he never wanted Germany to conquer all of Czechoslovakia.

BTW where did you learn your history?

 

[Redandgold]

To be clear they called it a non-aggression pact but it really was a divide the spoils pact. The Soviet/German treaty cleared the way for Germany and the Soviet Union to invade and carve up Poland without risking war with each other.

And no Chamberlain would not have signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler explicitly agreeing to Germany invading another country. It was the Chamberlain government that went to war with Germany over the invasion of Poland.

The Munich pact simply involved the return of German majority regions of Czechoslovakia (the Sudetenland) to Germany in return for Hitler promising NOT to invade the rest of that country. Hitler lied and broke his promise and the rest is history. You can accuse Chamberlain of being naive, which he was, but he never wanted Germany to conquer all of Czechoslovakia.

BTW where did you learn your history?

Chamberlain was a _ussy. He would have signed anything to avoid war, including a non aggression pact if he thought that would curry favor with Hitler.

 

[lotr10]

Chamberlain was a _ussy. He would have signed anything to avoid war, including a non aggression pact if he thought that would curry favor with Hitler.

Not true. Chamberlain was naive and he was a fool to trust Hitler but he would not have signed anything to avoid war. If what you say was true then the Chamberlain government would not have promised to go to war with Germany if they invaded Poland AFTER Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia.

Did you forget or were you just unaware that Chamberlain declared war on Germany?

Chamberlain announces Britain is at war with Germany

3 September 1939

www.bbc.com

 

[Redandgold]

Not true. Chamberlain was naive and he was a fool to trust Hitler but he would not have signed anything to avoid war. If what you say was true then the Chamberlain government would not have promised to go to war with Germany if they invaded Poland AFTER Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia.

Did you forget or were you just unaware that Chamberlain declared war on Germany?

Chamberlain announces Britain is at war with Germany

3 September 1939

www.bbc.com

By then his hand was forced.

 

[lotr10]

By then his hand was forced.

It was? Why would Chamberlain care about Poland? Especially given that as you said he would sign anything to avoid war?

Chamberlain deserves the scorn he gets for trusting Hitler. But I also think that he's beaten up to much about his pre-war decisions.

Bottom line is that Germany would never have been able to sign a treaty with France, Britain or the USA as cynical and predatory as the one they signed with the Soviet Union. This was because the difference between the German Nazis and the Western democracies was enormous. While the difference between the German Nazis and Soviet Socialists was in how broadly they extended the principals of socialism.

 

[isadore]

To be clear they called it a non-aggression pact but it really was a divide the spoils pact. The Soviet/German treaty cleared the way for Germany and the Soviet Union to invade and carve up Poland without risking war with each other.

And no Chamberlain would not have signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler explicitly agreeing to Germany invading another country. It was the Chamberlain government that went to war with Germany over the invasion of Poland.

The Munich pact simply involved the return of German majority regions of Czechoslovakia (the Sudetenland) to Germany in return for Hitler promising NOT to invade the rest of that country. Hitler lied and broke his promise and the rest is history. You can accuse Chamberlain of being naive, which he was, but he never wanted Germany to conquer all of Czechoslovakia.

BTW where did you learn your history?

Chamberlain made an agreement gave up a large part of another nation, Czechoslovakia. He agreed to allow Germany to invade another country. Part of the Sudetenland had not come to Czechoslovakia from Germany, but from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. And after occupying the Sudeten region in November, 1938. Looks like a non-aggression agreement in October, 1938. No aggression if you agree, the Nazis promised no aggression and the Brits and the French said ok. Heck they didn't even do anything when the Nazis occupied most of the rest of Czechoslovakia a few months later in March of 1939.

 

[lotr10]

Chamberlain made an agreement gave up a large part of another nation, Czechoslovakia. He agreed to allow Germany to invade another country. Part of the Sudetenland had not come to Czechoslovakia from Germany, but from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. And after occupying the Sudeten region in November, 1938. Looks like a non-aggression agreement in October, 1938. No aggression if you agree, the Nazis promised no aggression and the Brits and the French said ok. Heck they didn't even do anything when the Nazis occupied most of the rest of Czechoslovakia a few months later in March of 1939.

Disagree. Chamberlain naively thought that after absorbing the Sudetenland Hitler would be satisfied. That was his fundamental mistake.

The German claim was not frivolous as the Sudetenland was overwhelmingly made up of Germans who were thrilled to join the Reich.

There simply is no comparison between the naive attempt to avoid war that Britain & France agreed to in 1938 and the cynical & predatory treaty agreed to between Germany and the Soviet Union. That treaty LAUNCHED the war. The Munich agreement was a desperate and misguided effort to avoid war.

You guys are really into revisionist history aren't you?

 

[isadore]

Disagree. Chamberlain naively thought that after absorbing the Sudetenland Hitler would be satisfied. That was his fundamental mistake.

The German claim was not frivolous as the Sudetenland was overwhelmingly made up of Germans who were thrilled to join the Reich.

There simply is no comparison between the naive attempt to avoid war that Britain & France agreed to in 1938 and the cynical & predatory treaty agreed to between Germany and the Soviet Union. That treaty LAUNCHED the war. The Munich agreement was a desperate and misguided effort to avoid war.

You guys are really into revisionist history aren't you?

Could Hitler have signed a non-aggression pact with France or Great Britain or the USA that would allow him to invade a country?

155#
Obviously they could. It is what they did at Munich. Promising to allow Hitler to invade a country, Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia was a sovereign nation and they threw it to the wolves to avoid possible German aggression.
“a desperate and misguided effort to avoid war.” Non Aggression Pacts are countries agreeing not to attack each other. And that for the British and the French was what the Munich agreement was about.
And even afterward they took no action 4 months after the initial attack, when Hitler took a large portion of the country.
Gosh a ruddies using your argument about German lands, Hitler’s original demand from Poland in 1939 would have been justified. He was demanding the Polish Corridor, land that had been part of Germany until the Versailles Treaty.

 

[Redandgold]

It was? Why would Chamberlain care about Poland? Especially given that as you said he would sign anything to avoid war?

Chamberlain deserves the scorn he gets for trusting Hitler. But I also think that he's beaten up to much about his pre-war decisions.

Bottom line is that Germany would never have been able to sign a treaty with France, Britain or the USA as cynical and predatory as the one they signed with the Soviet Union. This was because the difference between the German Nazis and the Western democracies was enormous. While the difference between the German Nazis and Soviet Socialists was in how broadly they extended the principals of socialism.

It would have been an act of desperation. Anything to curry favor with Hitler. And, I’m not sure about that. Both France and Britain were pretty frightened of war with Germany. At least their leaders were.

 

[lotr10]

It would have been an act of desperation. Anything to curry favor with Hitler. And, I’m not sure about that. Both France and Britain were pretty frightened of war with Germany. At least their leaders were.

Their people were frightened of war to. As any sane person would have been after the carnage of WW1.

That France & Germany finally stood up to Hitler to protect a country that had little bearing on their interests was a sign of just how different they were from the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Given that lass then 25 years earlier WW1 had wiped out a generation of their young men this was an extraordinary act of courage.

 

[lotr10]

155#
Obviously they could. It is what they did at Munich. Promising to allow Hitler to invade a country, Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia was a sovereign nation and they threw it to the wolves to avoid possible German aggression.
“a desperate and misguided effort to avoid war.” Non Aggression Pacts are countries agreeing not to attack each other. And that for the British and the French was what the Munich agreement was about.
And even afterward they took no action 4 months after the initial attack, when Hitler took a large portion of the country.
Gosh a ruddies using your argument about German lands, Hitler’s original demand from Poland in 1939 would have been justified. He was demanding the Polish Corridor, land that had been part of Germany until the Versailles Treaty.

Your version of history is both wrong and warped. To suggest that the INTENT of the Munich agreement was to allow Hitler to attack Czechoslovakia is crazy.

It was a desperate attempt to avoid a terrible war that would likely cost millions of lives. There was no way France & Britain would go to war to protect a small slice of Czechoslovakia with an overwhelming number of Germans living in it. The reason Chamberlain is mocked in history was that he naively thought this one concession would prevent war and preserve the state of Czechoslovakia. He was wrong.

But to act as if Munich in any way resembles the predatory and cynical treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union that launched WW2 is crazy. I have to wonder at your motive for even trying.

 

[username123]

You speaking of the Nazis
91#
Now you say ‘I never said you could not be both (Nationalist and Nazi), but the Nazis were not.’
That is just unbelievably idiotic.
As to “scorched earth”, retreating armies have been doing that for millennia.

I never said you couldnt be be both. I said the Nazis weren't both.

 

[isadore]

Their people were frightened of war to. As any sane person would have been after the carnage of WW1.

That France & Germany finally stood up to Hitler to protect a country that had little bearing on their interests was a sign of just how different they were from the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Given that lass then 25 years earlier WW1 had wiped out a generation of their young men this was an extraordinary act of courage.

You mean the two countries that had already thrown "a country that had little bearing on their interests" to the wolves. They had acted what they considered in their own self interest by betraying Czechoslovakia and allowing its destruction. Now thats pretty damn cynical.