Lyke Omg!11, The Nazis Were Soo Imperliaistic!!!1111!

Discussion in 'History' started by mountainhare, Oct 7, 2005.

  1. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    That's only because he figured the Arabs could carry out the final solution.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Yeah. But you make it seem like the Hess thing is some big secret that you managed to dig up despite it being so hidden away by 'the man'. Therefore, before your great revelation (which I assume to be quite recent considering the great shock that seemed to come through your writing) you were ignorant of it.

    I also assume that you didn't learn this from any of the usual sources or that would have diminished the 'secret' aspect of the knowledge. So. Where did you learn this from? Got a friend who's cluing you into the great iniquities of the past?

    I already gave you the answer. You generally have one year of history in High School. In that year they cram in over 200 years of history. There's hardly any time to talk about the important things let alone the side notes such as Hess. Now. It's been speculated that Hess was actually part of an official peace offer from Hitler... Well. That's never been proven and even if it were, there's no reason that England had to accept any peace offers. They were within their rights to continue the war and maintain their treaties with their allies.

    You did know that WWII started because France had a mutual protection treaty with Poland, right? And even though they were unable to save Poland directly they were obligated to declare war? And England the same once France declared war? Did you know that Chamberlain desperately tried to talk peace to the Germans one final time but was pushed aside because it was too far? They'd given them Austria. They'd given Czechoslavakia. Poland was too much.

    By the way, reading this and that I came across a nifty term. Ostflucht. Check it out. You might find it interesting.

    Ok. So you just don't think it was as bad as it was made out to be. Fair enough. Many feel that way. I'm one of them as well. Sure it was shit, but it was hardly the only genocide that's ever been taken place. The Rape of Nan-King, for instance, was never made such a big deal. And there are genocides even closer to modern day that never made much impact on the world.

    However, it was called the Holocaust because that was the label applied to it. Calling it the Holocaust doesn't deny that other genocides have taken place. It's merely a handy way of referencing a single instance of genocide.

    Anyway. My point was that this is why Hitler and his reign were considered evil. Not because of his war mongering but because of his mass murder. Do you deny that mass murder is a bad thing? Do you think it deserves an appellation different than 'evil'? Personlly, I don't use the term 'evil', but many do. And it suffices, I suppose, in this instance if any.

    No. Just wondering is all. One comes across deniers of the Holocaust so rarely, and generall when one does they're skinheads or KKK. So, I just wondered. You're not a skinhead then? No white laces for our boy Mountainhare?

    What does being a skinhead have to do with being German?

    Like I said, old habits died hard.

    I agreed with you about colonizing the savages was regarded as kosher while Hitler's mistake was making war in Europe amongst the civilized folk.

    One thing that is vital to understanding the beginnings of WWII is that WWI was such a brutal war that it sapped the will to fight from all the nations of Europe. (Except Germany.) There was an attitude of Peace at all Costs. This is why so many concessions were made to the Germans before war was finally deemed inevitable. Chamberlain lost his career over it because he didn't realize that the time for peace was over and here he was still desperately following the adage of Peace at all Costs.

    America had colonies?
    I stand by my statement that colonialism failed because of the spread of information. The nearness of every location on the earth made it impossible to pretend to be freedom loving nations while imposing subjectivity on foreign nations.

    Going out, douchebag. Going out.

    But, Hitler's problem was, as you've stated, that he attacked civilized folk. He might have actually had some success were he to attack some third world nation somewhere and start a colony. But Hitler wanted Europe.

    Didn't France start the war? What exactly was the sequence of events of WWI? Like I said, WWI isn't an area that I know a great deal about (other than its outcomes) but I have heard that Germany wasn't necessarily the agressor in this case. Is this wrong?

    Anyway.
    Well. Like I said. That's the way it goes.
    I'm not sure France really 'grabbed' much land anyway, did they? I mean they occupied the Rhineland. But what else? Most of the land lost from the old German Empire was in the East. Austria. Poland. Czechoslavakia. Etc.. All the buffer states between Germany and Russia.

    How did France 'grab land'?


    Plus. I've already stated that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair and it's a pretty well accepted fact that the injustice of that treaty (joined with the worldwide depression and other factors such as nostalgia for the monarchy) led directly to WWII.

    The defeat of Germany in WWII was total. Complete. All the way to Berlin. And yet the occupation and consequences of their loss were actually quite light. Yes. Russia went mad dog and stole East Germany, but that's another story. I'll comment on that in a bit.

    Overall they did quite well.

    You seem to have this tendency to smear the conversation.
    Back then?
    When is 'back then'?
    You mean at the end of WWI? 1918?
    Or do you mean 20 years later at the beginnings of WWII?
    Do you think that the time periods were identical? Do you think that no changes took place during that time? Don't you realize that the technology that makes the world small were being developed in that time? And can't you see the war weariness that was a direct result of the bloody trench war? And the sense of status quo that was maintained for 20 years? Nobody wanted to rock the boat. And even when Hitler began rocking the boat, they thought they could appease him with a little more land. Just a little more breathing room. After all Versailles was a rather harsh treaty, wasn't it?

    Hitler was never satisfied. Even when he had most of Europe in the palm of his hands he wasn't satisfied.

    Anyway. I've already clearly stated that the idea of colonialism and imperialism didn't just vanish at the drop of a hat. It was an idea that had to develop and had to be forced into practice. Colonialism was made unsalvageable to any country that hoped to maintain the air of lover of freedom.

    You just completely ignore a point and just continue to drive your ignorance home, don't you?

    I asked you why concentrate on the end of WWI because of the difference between the end of WWI and WWII and you just completely miss the point. The WWII era was what I was discussing when I said colonialism and imperialism were out. However, as I've made clear repeatedly, this was a long process. It was going out in WWI but was even more 'out' in WWII. The remnants of the ideal are still with us today and probably will spring up from time to time for years to come.

    Old Habits Die Hard.

    Uh.
    "Nor did Poland..."?
    Huh?
    Poland was 'grabbed'. By your own admission.

    Anyway. I've already addressed this, idiot.
    The Cold War. The Atom Bomb. Duh. Der. Derp.

    Just how old are you? I asked you before and you didn't answer. Do you remember the Cold War?

    What the fuck are you talking about? It was 'ok' for Russia to do what it did? Really? Says who? Reagan? You fucking numbskull. You're seriously deficient in logic if you're going to say anything of the sort.

    Sort of.
    Russia ostensibly took all that land because they'd suffered so much in the war. Do you know how many Russians were killed by the Germans? They suffered enormously and they took the land to act as a buffer between them and any possible future aggressions.

    The same idea was the idea behind the creation of the buffer states after WWI. However, when Germany got aggressive, instead of standing by their convictions and preventing Germany from taking them, the West acquiesced and allowed Hitler quite a bit of leeway before finally stepping in with the partition of Poland.

    The U.S.S.R. was well within its rights to take those lands and to administer them in case the Germans tried the same thing again. It's understandable. Why should they trust the French or the English to prevent such an occurrence from happening again? They didn't pre-WWII so why would things be any different later?

    This is the reasoning behind the 'land grabs' by the Soviet Union post-WWII.

    You've already forgotten about what I already said about why Hitler was considered evil, haven't you? Diminished indeed.

    Anyway. Again. Old habits die hard.

    As to Korea and Vietnam...
    Uh.
    You're stretching things if you want to call those 'colonies'. But, I'm not surprised that you would attempt it.

    Interesting thing about Vietnam. While America was fighting Korea, we had a pact with the French that neither side would pull out of our respective 'conflicts' while the other was still fighting. The French had a chance of peace (I forget the year) but refused the treaty because America was still fighting theirs. Later, America pulled out of Korea, leaving the French still fighting in Indochina.

    Quite traitorous, that.

    You really need to understand the terror that the communist threat had over all the nations of the West. I think that you suffer from too great a distance from all these things you're speaking of. Your history lessons have been far too abstract for you to get any sort of perspective on the whole affair.

    And these actions are looked at as....?

    I've already said I'm not going to argue this as its not my area of knowledge. However, I've heard from several sources that Prussians were looked at as an elite. A nobility. The Junker Nobility.

    However, I'll concede this point because what little I have read recently does say that Germany took Prussia in. Interesting though considering the status of the Prussians within the German Empire.

    I really wish Hapsburg would show up.

    Yeah. But what does that have to do with anything? What does the 'Germany of Today" have to do with the 'Germany of Yesterday"?

    Paris was land taken from it by the French, I suppose? Naughty French. How dare you steal Paris from your German Overlords?!

    Exactly my thought when I made those statements. When France surrendered, then there was no reason for the English and the Americans to 'liberate' them.

    However, this is where the stickiness of 'duress' comes in.

    War is hell, right?

    Nothing except for the mass extermination of the Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and Russians.

    No one is stating or has stated otherwise.

    However, if one wants to look at land 'stolen' and 'rightfully reclaimed' then where does it end? Land has been shifted back and forth since the dawn of time. It's in the nature of the beast.

    You keep repeating this so I take it this is your main point.

    I repeat. Nobody considers them 'evil' because they started a war. Antisocial. Anachronistic. Imperialistic. Nationalistic. War-mongering. Aggressive. Opportunistic. Etc... But not evil.

    (I'm sure that you will find some who call them evil for such things, but these people are morons.)

    They're considered evil because of the contempt they offered to human life. They are considered evil because of their mass murder campaigns. They are considered evil because Hitler's moustache was the mark of the beast... (Kidding.)

    Seriously.

    Imperialism is not 'evil'. It's just not socially acceptable.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    It IS a big secret in high school history class. Just like how they tell you about the evil Japs invading Pearl Harbour 'unprovoked', yet how they neglect to mention the oil + scrap metal embargo placed on the Japs by the Americans, and how Japan would have collapsed without a supply of oil.

    When you reach liberal universities, you tend to hear a 'broader' view of history.
    So fucking what? We are ignorant of everything before making the discovery. The fact that I discovered it shows that I have presently been researching historical events.

    LOL. I learnt about it from Wikipedia... I read his name in a liberal history book, and done a little research.

    You're quite right. Britain had every right to continue the war. But they are being hypocritical turds when they charged Rudolf Hess with 'crimes against peace'. The British committed 'crimes against peace' when they refused the peace offer. I was merely amused by the hypocrisy of the British, which is why I started this tongue in cheek thread. It also aimed to destroy the notion that the British were little angels in WWII (which is a load of bullshit. As an Australian, you learn that the British REFUSED to send our soldiers back to the Pacific after Singapore fell. They forced Australian soldiers to fight in a European war, while the Japs were on our doorstep. Then again, Australia was just a backwater colony to them).

    Whoops. Once again, you forget Russia. Russia invaded Poland a couple of weeks later. I guess the mutual protection treaty became irrelevant, because the Polish welcomed the Russians with open arms. So did the Fins, who turned to the Axis when the Russians invaded!

    If the mutual protection treaty was the reason France and Britain declared war on Germany, why didn't they declare war on Russia? I'll discuss why at the end of this post...

    Who ever said anything about genocide? I accept that the Holocaust occured, in that the Jews were oppressed and mistreated, stuck in concentration camps and had land grabbed of them, but I am skeptical of 6 million being gassed by the Germans.

    My feelings exactly. Whenever Hitler is mentioned, you always hear "Hitler oppressed the Jews. BOO HISS!"
    They seem to forget that when Japan attacked America, American citizens of Japanese descent were seen as 'threats', and stuck in concentration camps without trial. They also forget that the European Jews were not welcome in many mainland European countries, such as Poland and Ukraine.

    They also forget the treatment of blacks in America AFTER WWII, AFTER the Nuremburg trials were America denounced the Germans for the oppression of the Jews.

    The rape of Nanking is forgotten. Just yellow-skinned Asians killing other Asians. Who really cares, as long as the victims don't sip wine or tea?

    What Germany did was not THE Holocaust, it was A holocaust. Merely another morally questionable act during a long and bloody war, in a region which has seen many questionable acts before, during, and after WWII.

    Calling it THE Holocaust is drumming it up as something especially horrible and unique. It was A holocaust, not THE Holocaust. The Jews were not the only ones to suffer, either. Political prisoners (communists) and Poles were the first to get stuck into concentration camps.

    Many view Hitler as 'mad' and 'evil' because he tried to conquer Europe (although I believe he was merely would have restored old German borders after going East and smashing the Communists. My opinion is supported by his attempts to sue for peace with Britain. But then again, who would honestly want the British Isles? They are more trouble then they are worth!). As for the mass murder, there was never one shred of documentation which proved that Hitler wanted the mass murder of Jews. He wanted them OUT of Germany, something which was quite natural at that time. What he wanted done was what many German, and even Europeaners, wanted. And even what other nations wanted to do regarded foreigners, who they believed were 'destroying their proud culture' (eg. Chinese and Boxer Rebellion).

    In today's society, Hitler's aims to rid Germany of the Jews may seem inhumane. However, you must look at his decisions in the context of the 1930's, decisions which a majority of Germans supported!

    No... I'm not skinhead. My grandparents were Polish, and were the first rounded up by the Germans when they stormed into Poland. This is part of the reason why I feel such contempt for Britain and France's excuse that they declared war on Germany due to its invasion of Poland, yet allowed Russia to grab part of Poland and slaughter the Polish army and Polish resistance, who bravely attempted to resist. The Germans got punished, the Russians did not. Even worse, the Russians continued to oppress the Polish after WW2, where opponents of the Communists just 'disappeared' (into the Gulags, I guess, although we'll never know).

    Thank you. Imperialism was not going out, as you originally stated. Countries like Britain and France declared it 'immoral', because they were quite happy with where their borders were situated. They had a subdued Germany, and France had Alsace and Lorraine. So it was all very well and convenient for them to say "OMG, IMPERIALISM IS BAD!1111!", while France oppressed the Vietnamese and the Algerians, and Britain danced on African and Arab countries given to it in 'trust'.

    Colonies were lost after WWII , not due to moral qualms or a change in what was 'socially acceptable', but because countries like Britain and France could not longer hold onto then. Witness France's defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, or how the French scurried out of Algeria after being driven off by the naughty terrorists.

    Non-sequitor, and you're still failing to miss the point.

    During WWII, Poland was grabbed by the Germans. After WWII, Poland gained German territory, as did America and Russia. That is the very definition of imperialism.

    So Russia suffered when it signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler, which allowed them to gobble up the Baltic States, Finland and Poland? You see, you continue to dodge simple facts which throw a spanner in your works. Imperialism was practiced by Russia, and no-one batted an eyelash.

    LOL! Why don't you try and explain how the land they stole acted as a 'buffer'? I guess Hitler took mainland Europe so that it could act as a buffer between them and Britain, hmmm?

    Stalin wanted the land for no other reason that it was there for him to grab. Also, Russia has had a negative history with MANY nations, why not build a buffer zone around their whole country!? Why not build a buffer zone for that buffer zone as well, while they are at it?

    I guess you would feel that Russia was justified if it had invaded Japan or Indonesia to act as a 'buffer zone' against the United States during the Cold War!

    Oh how smart it is to build a buffer zone right next to, and on top of, your enemy's land. It's sort of like a criminal setting up a hideout near a police station!

    Yes, imperialism was wrong, which is why the 'West' (Britain and France, NOT the U.S) stepped in when Hitler grabbed France. And never stepped in when Russia grabbed Poland. Hey, you seem to enjoy ignoring inconsistencies!

    No. The Germans were defeated and subdued.

    The Americans wanted their influence and strength in places like Korea and Vietnam against the Red Scare. They enforced a system of government and ideals on a nation of people who did not want their interference. That sounds like 'New Age' imperialism to me...

    I don't know... why don't you ask America, who is currently doing diddly squat about the Russian occupation of the Chechyan, or the Israeli occupation of Arab land? Sure, many Americans don't like the aggression displayed by Russia and Israel, but what the hell are they doing about it? They leapt to the aid of Kuwait when Saddam wanted to unite the Arab states and redraw borders, but they continue to ignore Resolution 242. Imperialism is out of practice, hmmm?

    To be honest, so do I. Hapsburg definitely is quite an authority in this area.

    Haha... I'm actually talking about Alsace and Lorraine, which were won by Germany in the Franco-Prussian War.

    EXACTLY MY POINT!!!

    In my second post on this thread, I mentioned:
    Hahah, I understand that many people consider Hitler evil due to their belief that he committed mass murder. However, imperialism often plays a major part when people I talk to say 'Boo WWII Germany, how dare you invade France and steal their way of life!'

    I agree that Imperialism is not 'evil'. However, I will continue to quibble that it was socially acceptable at the time Germany invaded, as long as you were white, and the top dog. Observe Russia and France's imperialistic behaviour just prior to WW2, during WW2, and after WW2.

    Quite simply, the French and the British were jealous and spiteful of the Germans, who were a world power. Racism was also involved (comparing the Germans to the Huns). Ever since the Franco-Prussian war, the French HATED the Germans, and believed that they would one day reclaim Alsace and Lorraine (which they did, in WWI. Sweet revenge!) Which is turn caused the Germans to hate the French.

    BTW, my age is actually irrelevant to this discussion. I never claimed to be an authority in this area, so I fail to see why I should have to discuss my age or credentials. What matters here are the facts, which I have continuously put forward in these posts. We differ on opinion, fair enough. And I think that you definitely are a worthy adversary. But bringing my age/credentials into this discussion is nothing more than a cheap ploy, and an ad hom.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2005
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. candy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,074
    mountainhare makes some interesting observations about Poland and Stalin. In many ways it does seem like Stalin got rewarded for helping get the whole war in motion.

    It can be noted that the French did not think it was possible for the Germans to invade France because of the defenses built after WWI. Hitler went around the stationary defensive fortifications.
     
  8. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,224
    OT, though the Nazis were a bit "imperialistic" in a certain sense (expanionistic, enslavement, and all that jazz), you can say the same thing about the other major powers, and minor ones too. France, Belgium, Britain, etc. had larger land empires than the DR, and treated a lot of the people miserably. Though not to the same extent as Nazi Germany, they still mistreated a large amount of people.
    Hypocritial, much?
     
  9. Redline Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    30
    they were winners
     
  10. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    They lost it all...
     
  11. Redline Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    30
    same shit as losers... germany will rise again :/
     
  12. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    The word german and the word Nazi do not mean the same thing.
     
  13. Redline Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    30
    are you from europe?
     
  14. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Let me guess...you are from somewhere south in the US?
     
  15. Redline Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    30
    no
    i'm from europe
     
  16. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    What a shame.
     
  17. Redline Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    30
    too proud to be american?
     
  18. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Maybe we should discuss the topic?
     
  19. Redline Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    30
    it's ok to me
     
  20. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    One aim of the nazis was to prevent communism to spread in Europe. Ironically their actions brought communism right into the heart of Europe, dividing europe in half. It is doubtful that this would have happened without the actions of the nazis.
     
  21. Redline Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    30
    yeah that was shit
     
  22. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,224
    Nazism is the most stupid, pointless, retarded ideology ever invented by humankind.
    Racism is the only rival to nazism's stupidity.

    Germany under the Kaisers was a land of pros-fucking-sperity. Unified, nationalistic, and not ashamed of shit because then, they had nothing to really be ashamed of.
    If Germany had won WW1, hitler would NEVER had come to power, the holocaust would NEVER have happened, and WW2 would NEVER have occurred.
    The world, in short, would probably have been better if the US never got involved in WW1, and if the Centrals had won the First World War. Shit would not have fucked up into the seriously horrible condition that allowed the nazis to come to power.
     
  23. savior-of-hyrule As a tribute to someone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    32
    Well alot could have been done if the treaty of versailles had been created a little bit more lenient.
     

Share This Page