Good point.
National Socialism vs. Communism.
-
I apologize in advance for bumping an old thread. I’m new and don’t know just how taboo that is. No disrespect is intended in any of my following statements. Contrary to what many will think, I am not racist. I am not anti-Jewish.
I agree with very many of Kurt’s statements except those regarding the “Holocaust”. I will try to refute a couple of IL’s and, to a lesser degree, Narvik’s statements. If anyone demands it, I will try to find sources for disputed points, but I will rely on memory otherwise. i will also give my interpretation of the topic discussion.
National Socialism- Came to power through democratic election, despite Hitler’s generally unfavorable view of Democracy. Germany happened to use a dictatorship but that isn’t necessary to the ideology. Belief that the Individual should contribute to the country because he wants and because it is beneficial for all. Believed that all races should take pride and retain their unique cultures and traits. Believed people should not mix as their evolutionary differences provide advantages and disadvantages in different climates(example, 97% of United States African-Americans are Vitamin D deficient because their ancestors adapted to extreme sunlight and can no longer absorb as much from the less intense North American sunshine). Hitler loved the German race and wanted to see it thrive and once again be a proud people. It promoted traditional family values. It opposed homosexuality that was so rampant in Berlin. In fact, the heavily Jewish-owned film industry produced some of the first homosexual scenes. Germany was in a massive depression. Under National Socialism, in 12 years, Germany became the NUMBER ONE leader in medicine, technology, and science. Hitler’s innovative policies revived Germany, in spite of the extremely influential international Jews “declaring war” on Germany via boycott(in 1934 i believe), even the New York Times reported this. Interestingly, despite being bombed to oblivion and losing on all fronts, the Germans never even got close to attempting a revolt against the government in power, such was their love and faith in Hitler and National Socialism.
Communism- Came to power by murdering the Tsar of Russia. Backed primarily by international Jewry and many leaders were themselves Jewish(I bring up Jewish info because this is pertinent to Hitler’s distrust of them and eventual internment of them). Atheistic. Believes in an enormously powerful federal government with a dictator. Total control of industry, harvests, etc. Murders own citizens en masse(Stalin’s gulags, Ukrainian genocide, and Mao’s killing of some 84 million of his Chinese). Don’t know much else about it, honestly, which is in large part because I hate stuff I do know about it. Generally, Stalin was hated by his citizens.
Onto IL’s and Kurt’s debate/argument
Poland
Germany was not some rabid dog wanting to gobble up territory. It was re-claiming German territory pre-WWI where in many cases the ethnic Germans were being mistreated(Czechoslovakia) or murdered(Poland). The stripping of German lands to Poland resulted in many Germans being vulnerable to the Polish government’s and citizens mistreatment. Furthermore, Danzig was now cut off from Germany via land. The blockade prevented adequate commute and supply routes via the Baltic. Thousands and thousands were killed before and during the onset of the German invasion. I don’t know how valid this is but I have read that Poland was planning offensives against Germany, having been promised aid from UK. Poland refused to seriously consider Germany’s proposal to allow a land route to Danzig. It also ignored the demands that they stop incurring on ethnic Germans’ lands and subsequently shooting them. Hitler invaded to save those Germans. UK and France then declare war on GE while refusing to do so when Soviet Union invades Poland, which is… odd, to say the least, no?Bombing
Yes, IL, Germany sent bombers. They did not carpet bomb. They did not fire bomb which resulted in countless number of humans being incinerated while huddled up in Dresden, of which there was no military significance.As with nearly every war in history, all sides committed atrocities. I contend that Germany committed far fewer than each major Allied power minus probably France.
I’ll pause here and see if anyone is interested in continuing discussion. I wouldnt mind starting a seperate thread although I fear that thread would approach forum rule-breaking. All input is very welcome. Thanks for the read.
-
Kurt has a new account?
-
@Colt45:
Contrary to what many will think, I am not racist. I am not anti-Jewish.
Communism- Came to power by murdering the Tsar of Russia. Backed primarily by international Jewry and many leaders were themselves Jewish.
[Starts to raise hand, then slowly lowers it back down]… awww… nevermind… it ain’t worth it.
-
@Colt45:
Contrary to what many will think, I am not racist. I am not anti-Jewish.
Communism- Came to power by murdering the Tsar of Russia. Backed primarily by international Jewry and many leaders were themselves Jewish.
[Starts to raise hand, then slowly lowers it back down]… awww… nevermind… it ain’t worth it.
:lol: :lol:
-
Lolol IL dont tell anyone
Wolf, I’d be happy to discuss that aspect. I will start with a link which delves right into it. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html
-
As someone who bears scars from earlier in this thread, trying very hard indeed to change minds via a forum debate - Wolf has it right. Very sensible indeed of you Wolf. I marked your post up in appreciation.
-
yea, the colt guy seems like a trump voter, in other words not consistent -contradicting thinking.
Contrary to what many will think, I am not racist. I am not anti-Jewish.
Communism- Came to power by murdering the Tsar of Russia. Backed primarily by international Jewry and many leaders were themselves Jewish.
-
@Imperious:
yea, the colt guy seems like a trump voter, in other words not consistent -contradicting thinking.
Don’t think so, Colts profile says his from North Dakota, a state adjacent to Canada and established by German, Norwegian and Swedish immigrants. I figure Trump get zero votes from up there.
-
@Colt45:
Communism- Came to power by murdering the Tsar of Russia.
Backed primarily by international Jewry and many leaders were themselves Jewish(I bring up Jewish info because this is pertinent to Hitler’s distrust of them and eventual internment of them).
Atheistic.This is where I get off your bus. How can a man be both a Jew and an Atheist at the same time ? If commies are atheists that are against religion, why would them label themselves as Jews, Christians or Islamists ? And if #international Jewry# (is this even a word ?) did in fact back Communism, as you claim, then why did Sovjet union not back Israel ? How come it was the Christian President Truman that backed the establishment of Israel in 1948, and not the, according to you, the Jew loving commies ? Just curious
-
@Colt45:
Communism- Came to power by murdering the Tsar of Russia.
Backed primarily by international Jewry and many leaders were themselves Jewish(I bring up Jewish info because this is pertinent to Hitler’s distrust of them and eventual internment of them).
Atheistic.This is where I get off your bus. How can a man be both a Jew and an Atheist at the same time ? If commies are atheists that are against religion, why would them label themselves as Jews, Christians or Islamists ? And if #international Jewry# (is this even a word ?) did in fact back Communism, as you claim, then why did Sovjet union not back Israel ? How come it was the Christian President Truman that backed the establishment of Israel in 1948, and not the, according to you, the Jew loving commies ? Just curious
I am referring to racial Jews(Khazars). Trotsky was one of the racially Jewish leaders. He clearly did not promote the peaceful aspects of the Jewish faith. The Soviet Union did tangibly supply the military entity that seized Arab citrus and olive groves in the northwestern coast of Palestine in 1948.
Truman’s presidential campaign had nearly ran out of funds until Zionists provided two million dollars to continue his campaign. Regarding him being “Christian”, would a Christian support the Palestinian Genocide of 1948 to set up a new “homeland” for the Jews? No, no real Christian would(I am NOT claiming he’s Jewish, only that that act is a gross subversion of God’s laws). But, he had obligations because of the financial support he had received, similar to today’s lobbying in Congress, to support Zionist ambitions. And why would a Jewish state even be necessary after the Germans had been crushed?
It’s not a matter of Commies and capitalists, it’s a good old-fashioned case of money talks. Whether people recognize it or not, the richest men in the world happen to be racial Jews(Rockefeller, Rothschild).
To people claiming I’m racist: All peoples have evil among their ranks whether it be Western Europeans, Africans, Asians, or Jews. I’m not claiming any one of those is inherently evil as THAT is racist and false.Six corporations own 90% of United States media(Warner, etc.) and plays a massive role in what “history” is. Let’s be respectful and not brand someone racist or having an unsound mind when he/she disagrees with that 90%.
Thank you for being respectful with your question, Narvik
-
This is where I get off your bus. How can a man be both a Jew and an Atheist at the same time ? If commies are atheists that are against religion, why would them label themselves as Jews, Christians or Islamists ? And if #international Jewry# (is this even a word ?) did in fact back Communism, as you claim, then why did Sovjet union not back Israel ? How come it was the Christian President Truman that backed the establishment of Israel in 1948, and not the, according to you, the Jew loving commies ? Just curious
If commies are atheists that are against religion, why would them label themselves as Jews, Christians or Islamists ?
And if #international Jewry# (is this even a word ?) did in fact back Communism, as you claim, then why did Sovjet union not back Israel ?You’ve asked two very good questions. The answer to both can be found by looking at history. Czarist Russia had a long history of Anti-Semitism. That history was so strong that, at least until 1917, the international Jewish community generally favored the Axis. The general feeling, at least among Jews, was that while all major participants in WWI had an unfortunate history of anti-Semitism, czarist Russia’s anti-Semitism was significantly stronger than that of any other major participant.
Any time you’re trying to overthrow a government, it generally makes sense to ally with those the government has alienated. The Bolsheviks understood this. After coming to power, they declared anti-Semitism to be a crime, with the punishment for that crime being execution. The Jewish community saw czarist anti-Semitism as a disease; and many Jews also saw Bolshevism as the cure.
Some Jews recognized that Jewish participation in the Bolshevik revolution and Bolshevik government had served to fuel Russian anti-Semitism. Many Russians blamed the Jews for the communist government’s massive crimes against humanity. There was a feeling among many Jews that if the Bolshevik government was to fall, the replacement government would be at least as anti-Semitic as the czarists had been. A number of Jews felt it was in the Jewish community’s best interests for the Bolshevik government to survive.
It is that feeling which may help explain the (Jewish-owned) New York Times’ decision to lie about the Ukrainian famine. That famine represented the mass murder of 7 million innocent people, including 3 million children. (Seventy year later the New York Times apologized for this coverup.) In choosing to lie about the famine, a deliberate decision was made to shield the Soviet government from the negative diplomatic and international political consequences which would otherwise have arisen. Several years later, the New York Times began a vigorous campaign to get the United States to go to war against Nazi Germany (and perhaps in alliance with the Soviet regime). The thinking was that the Jewish community would benefit from the defeat of an anti-Semitic regime (such as Hitler’s), and the victory of a pro-Semitic regime (such as the Soviet Union).
Stalin, however, had the habit of allying with B against A. Then he’d ally with C to get rid of B. Then he’d eliminate C. He used this strategy to become the uncontested dictator of the Soviet Union. He also applied it to his other dealings, including his dealings with the Jews. His plan was to use the international Jewish community as part of a broader effort to destroy a common enemy (Nazi Germany). Once his Jewish ally had served its intended purpose, it could then be eliminated. Toward the end of his life, he ordered the construction of two large new concentration camps, widely rumored to be used on the Jews. His show trials of Jewish doctors were intended to create the legal fictions necessary for a broader campaign against Soviet Jews generally. The Soviet media began issuing statements such as the following “Unmasking the gang of poisoner-doctors struck a blow against the international Jewish Zionist organization.”
In America, Jews had achieved important positions in the media, finance, academia, and other fields. Due to all this Jewish influence in America, Stalin believed that in a war between America and the Soviet Union, the international Jewish community would favor the United States. Stalin’s political preparations for the war against Nazi Germany consisted of liquidating any Soviet citizen who had right wing political views. His internal political preparations for war against the United States and the West consisted primarily of the planned liquidation of the Soviet Jewish population.
NATO’s non-nuclear forces would have been completely inadequate to prevent the Red Army from sweeping across all of Western Europe. The only real deterrent to Soviet invasion was the American nuclear threat. But as of the early '50s, the United States did not have ICBMs. To drop a nuclear bomb on someone, one had to get a plane directly over the intended target. Stalin believed his (very numerous) MiG force capable of shooting down American bombers before they delivered their nuclear payloads.
However, Stalin died in 1953, without having had the time to either launch WWIII, or to liquidate the Soviet Jewish population. Stalin’s successors tended to embrace a milder and less aggressive version of his anti-Semitism. The United States and Israel were regarded with extreme distrust, and the Soviet Union tended to aid Israel’s enemies.
-
@Colt45:
Lolol IL dont tell anyone
Wolf, I’d be happy to discuss that aspect. I will start with a link which delves right into it. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html
Thanks for your collection of very good posts, Colt, and for the above link. I’d like to lay a bit of a foundation before addressing the link itself.
Let’s say you have an ethnic conflict, like the undeclared war between the Jews and the Palestinians. Typically, there will be very little overlap between the claims being made by one side and the claims made by the other side. To believe all the factual assertions made by either participant will almost inevitably lead to favoring that participant over the other. The most important step in choosing a side to favor is to determine which factual assertions to actually believe. Factual assertions made by a third party (such as the Red Cross, or a human rights organization) are probably more reliable than the claims of either participant. (Except in cases where Jews or Palestinians have become influential members of such organizations. To the extent that members of either group have gained influence over those organizations, those organizations could no longer be regarded as neutral.) In a conflict such as this, a number of factual claims will need to be held in abeyance. Until a factual assertion has been either confirmed or denied by a highly credible neutral third party, that assertion should be regarded as something which could easily be true, and just as easily be false.
There are some parallels between the Jewish/Palestinian ethnic conflict, and the Jewish/Russian ethnic conflict. During the latter ethnic conflict, the Russians began in the stronger position. They used that position to do enough anti-Semitic things to create massive resentment and bitterness within the Jewish community. But they did little about the massive expansion of the Russian Jewish population which occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries. The Jews were not expelled from Russia, and were not prevented from reproducing at well above replacement level. Most Russian Jews lived in poverty due to anti-Semitic economic discrimination. But they were also in a position of rapidly growing demographic strength.
The Jews were far from the only ones excluded from the center of Russian society. Czarist Russia had occupied nations such as Poland and Finland. Polish and Finns were not necessarily accorded the same treatment as ethnic Russians.
The phrase “Russian Revolution” is a misnomer, because the vast majority of inner circle Bolsheviks were not ethnic Russians. The phrase “Anti-Russian Revolution” would be far more accurate; to denote the fact that for the most part, that revolution resulted in ethnic Russians losing control over their own country. Those who gained control were typically people who had been excluded from the center of czarist Russia. They then exacted an ugly revenge against the groups they blamed for having excluded them. Stalin, for example, was from Georgia. (Not the American Georgia, but the Georgia south of Russia.)
Any time you have an ethnic conflict, whether it’s Jews against Palestinians, or Jews against czarist Russians, one often finds oneself wondering who started it. Normally the answer to that question depends on who you listen to. If you listen to the standard-issue Jewish account of the Jewish/Palestinian conflict, the Jews have made every reasonable effort to show restraint in the face of intolerable Palestinian provocation. The typical Palestinian description places blame for that conflict on the Jews. Jews describe atrocities committed by Palestinians, while remaining silent about atrocities committed by Jews. Palestinians of course are very vivid in their descriptions of Jewish atrocities committed against them, while remaining silent about their own acts of terror against Jews.
The article to which you linked was written from a pro-czarist/pro-ethnic Russian perspective. Because it was written from that perspective, it places the vast majority of blame for the Jewish/Russian ethnic conflict at the feet of the Jews. Something written from the Jewish perspective, on the other hand, would draw attention to the anti-Semitic measures undertaken by the czars, while downplaying or completely whitewashing the brutal revenge that some Jews exacted during the Soviet era. Because there was even more bitterness and hatred associated with the Jewish/Russian ethnic conflict than with the Jewish/Palestinian ethnic conflict, it’s at least as difficult to be objective about the former as it is the latter. All the more reason, therefore, to go the extra mile in the effort to reach objectivity.
Listening to both sides’ stories is an important part of going that extra mile. Obviously, both sides in any ethnic conflict are typically capable of presenting lies, half truths, distortions, exaggerations, facts taken out of context, and omissions. One typically has to sift large piles of that to find a few precious nuggets of objective truth.
-
Among the many problems with Kurt and Colt’s perspective is they don’t object to ethno-nationalism. In fact they celebrate it. It’s not like Hitler was for national/ethnic/cultural autonomy and leaving everyone be. Hitler was quite clear that the goal was Aryan domination of the world. Germans would become managers/owners/conquerors of a world dominion and would be educated to rule. So while the imagined enemy is an ethnic group that is supposedly conspiring to dominate the world (the Jews), and Nazis wanted to supplant that group with their own group. Via the process of defining their imaginary enemy, the Nazis also defined the lengths they would go to to supplant that enemy.
This is why communism/socialism, despite it’s severe flaws in terms of historical implementation (and I make no attempt to defend Lenin/Trotsky. I categorically condemn them and argue they shouldn’t even be called socialists on account of their rejection of democratic accountability) remains way more sympathetic (from the perspective of justice and liberty) than national socialism. Among the many reasons for this is that if international socialism had been achieved, then we wouldn’t have to worry about any particular ethnic group (or other type of group) dominating society via their ownership of capital and consequent control of governments. The ultimate goal of socialism is to abolish such centralization of power so that ordinary people control their own lives (via control/management of the means of production where they work) and are not marionettes for capital owners to play with. Socialism aims for solutions to the problems of ethno-nationlist domination, imperialism, and ecological degradation while national socialism celebrates ethno-nationalist domination as natural and good. Maybe this socialist goal is utopian, but not less honorable than national socialism.
Did international capital play a role in infiltrating, shaping, distorting and deforming the Bolshevik Revolution? Almost certainly. But they also played a role in shaping the Nazi Revolution and probably every major revolution since (with Revolutionary Catalonia as one of the few honorable exceptions). Yes the Bolsheviks failed and became tyrants, but if we look at history we see that most revolutions ultimately fail and revert to tyranny. With the clarity of history, we know that the French Revolution reverting to tyranny is not even remotely sufficient reason to reject the cause of “liberty, equality, and fraternity” for all times just as the present state of American political life is not sufficient reason to reject the principles upon which America was founded.
It is indeed quite silly to suppose that Trotsky and other prominent Bolsheviks were racial supremacists who were participating in some grand plot initiated by rich Jewish capitalists. But what is not at all silly is the idea that those people who control vast amounts of capital will use any means necessary to maintain and expand that position of power and domination over other people. And some of these people are indeed motivated by ethno-nationalism and other dishonorable ideologies (while others are motivated purely by greed). This means war, ecological degradation, and other irrational acts that lead to death, impoverishment, and diminution of the quality of life.
One of the many reasons to reject national socialism is that far from transcending ethno-nationalism, in fact it is just another ethno-nationalist power fantasy. It presupposes a world where ethnic groups are in a death-struggle with one another (and therefore it is natural and good for these ethnic groups to commit crimes and practice deception in pursuit of their own ends….) That’s right, according to the national socialist ethic and worldview, their imagined “Jewish” enemy is in fact doing what it ought to. If we really want to oppose ethno-nationalism as well as the tragedy of billionaires using war for their own ends, then what is necessary is not forming ethno-nationalist enclaves and fighting each other for domination. What is necessary is taking up cause against the system of global capitalism and imperialism that perpetuates such problems. And from this perspective, the Bolsheviks (while deserving condemnation) remain more sympathetic than the national socialists.
-
Its just a soapbox of the same ideas that is brought up in virtually every single thread regardless if said thread has any relevance to these topics. Its been going on for years and is pretty funny actually.
-
Interesting post Zhukov
-
@Imperious:
Its just a soapbox of the same ideas that is brought up in virtually every single thread regardless if said thread has any relevance to these topics. Its been going on for years and is pretty funny actually.
Ya… Kurt and Colt… some people you just have to let them talk… nothing you can say otherwise. :-P
-
Rather that attempt to counter each erroneous assertion Zhukov made, I will take a step back and look at the bigger picture. As a general rule there are two available evolutionary strategies: individual, and group-oriented. Both strategies are seen in the insect world. Most insects pursue an individual evolutionary strategy, and are unwilling to make sacrifices for anyone other than their own offspring. Ants, wasps, bees, and other social insects pursue a group evolutionary strategy. The latter strategy is much more powerful than the former, which is why there are no “individual evolutionary strategy” insects competing for the niches filled by ants.
What is true of insects is also true of human beings. During the rise of the Roman Republic, Rome pursued a group evolutionary strategy. Romans were willing to make considerable personal sacrifices for the good of Rome. All that ended during the declining days of the Roman Empire. Government officials became much easier to bribe. Concepts such as honor were regarded with cynicism and derision. Roman men were no longer willing to fight for Rome. A large population of able bodied Romans was given bread and circuses, without being required to work. All of this was consistent with an individual evolutionary strategy, and inconsistent with a group evolutionary strategy. The group evolutionary strategy had been abandoned; and that abandonment was the primary cause of the fall of the Roman Empire.
In a typical Third World nation the majority of wealth will have been seized by a very small economic elite. That elite acts in ways which benefit itself, and acts without regard for the welfare of the nation as a whole. Those outside the elite pursue “selfish familialism”–which basically means to always act in one’s family’s own interests, and assume everyone else will do the same. This is a group evolutionary strategy–but on a family scale, not a nation scale. Such a strategy cannot build or maintain a nation, and cannot threaten the narcissistic elites’ stranglehold on power.
The United States and Europe are steadily transitioning toward Third World status. The main reason for that transition is that our economic elites are at least as badly behaved as theirs. The lies and political agendas of the elites have consistently pushed the West closer to Third World status. (That does not necessarily mean that Third World status for us is their ultimate objective. It does, however, mean that they are consistently “acting as if” driven by that motive.) The elites have increasingly embraced crony capitalism. They have chosen to import workers while exporting jobs. They are choosing to physically replace the people of Western nations with those from Third World nations. At least in the U.S., 51% of immigrants are on welfare. $24,000 was spent, per income tax paying American, to fund the Wall Street bailouts. The elites have accumulated enormous government debts in order to pay for their spending–spending never intended to benefit the American people or the American nation. These are the sort of actions which can push a First World nation into Third World status.
Several years ago, the Mexican government passed a law imposing stricter standards on vehicular emissions. Both the public and police regarded this law as an excuse for police to extract more bribes from the people. Neither group felt the law had anything to do with environmental protection. The law never resulted in reduced emissions, but only resulted in more bribes for police.
More generally, Third World nations are nearly helpless to enforce any sort of environmental standards. The enforcement of such standards would require a group evolutionary strategy. Selfish familialism cannot result in solid environmental protections. Nor can it result in a strong collective response to any other national or global threat. To the extent that humanity needs to resist group level threats, that resistance can be achieved only to the extent that we resist the elites’ (highly dedicated) efforts to convert Western nations into Third World nations.
The Nazi government passed clean air and clean water standards. Worker safety measures were significantly improved. The workweek was reduced to 40 hours. Employers were forced to give their workers long vacations. On the other hand, corporate profits significantly increased during the Nazi regime. If the Nazi government significantly improved environmental protections, the well-being of German workers, and the profits of employers, there is no reason to suppose that Nazi Germany was in transition to Third World status.
Western nations are called “democracies,” even though money matters more than votes. It would be more accurate to label such nations democratic plutocracies. 50 - 100 years ago, there was no overlap between the values of the plutocratic elite and those of the American people. The American people valued things like justice, fairness, human rights, idealism, etc. (At least up to the point.) The primary value of the plutocratic elite is “Antiracism”. Other names for that term include white guilt, or the destruction of the white race.
That the elites couldn’t have cared less about human rights, or the prevention of mass murder, was proved by their indifference to the Ukrainian famine (7 million victims), other acts of Soviet mass murder (about 20 million additional victims). It was also proved by their use of a food blockade during WWI (700,000 victims), their use of a food blockade during WWII (20 - 30 million victims), the postwar Morgenthau Plan (6 million victims), Operation Keelhaul (an unknown number of victims, probably in the millions), and their passive acceptance of Soviet sphere deportations (probably at least 2 million victims). So how do you convince a gullible American public that the elites’ value set overlaps the public’s value set, even though there is no overlap? First, they created an exaggerated picture of the Nazis’ human rights violations, while sweeping Soviet mass murders and Western plutocrats’ mass murders under the rug. Then they argued that Nazism and mass murder were inextricably linked, and that it was impossible to embrace the former without also embracing the latter. The next step was to con the public into believing that any view the Nazis had which disagreed with the plutocrats’ perspective would inevitably lead to mass murder. The final step in this process was to convince the public that Nazism was worse than communism, regardless of which side had been more brutal. The public had by this point absorbed enough of the plutocrats’ values to make this argument stick.
-
Rather that attempt to counter each erroneous assertion Zhukov made, I will take a step back and look at the bigger picture. As a general rule there are two available evolutionary strategies: individual, and group-oriented. Both strategies are seen in the insect world. Most insects pursue an individual evolutionary strategy, and are unwilling to make sacrifices for anyone other than their own offspring. Ants, wasps, bees, and other social insects pursue a group evolutionary strategy. The latter strategy is much more powerful than the former, which is why there are no “individual evolutionary strategy” insects competing for the niches filled by ants.
OK Agent Smith
The Nazi government passed clean air and clean water standards. Worker safety measures were significantly improved. The workweek was reduced to 40 hours. Employers were forced to give their workers long vacations. On the other hand, corporate profits significantly increased during the Nazi regime. If the Nazi government significantly improved environmental protections, the well-being of German workers, and the profits of employers, there is no reason to suppose that Nazi Germany was in transition to Third World status.
Ever heard about Organisation Todt??
One of the workers saftey was, that they embedded your dead bodies in the wall of cement of when you would die at the Job site.
O-tone of Himmler was that he didn’t care if such an such millions slaves workers died while building a new street or Rollbahn and especially didn’t care of millions of millions Jews who would die in the same process of leveling a new Rollbahn.
-
OK Agent Smith
You remember that poster? wow!
Yea as a general rule i always compare insects and humans and apply what the former do as an example for the latter…. not
-
@aequitas:
Ever heard about Organisation Todt??
One of the workers saftey was, that they embedded your dead bodies in the wall of cement of when you would die at the Job site.
A number of anti-Nazi lies have been told over the years. For example, I’ve read Mein Kampf, and not once did Hitler say anything about a desire for world conquest. Instead, he wrote about his desire to conquer the Soviet Union–or at least that portion of the Soviet Union west of the Urals. This, he felt, would give Germany the same strength relative to Europe the United States had relative to North America. He pointed out that no one had ever imposed a Versailles Treaty on the United States. Under the Nazis, German naval spending was never more than 10 - 11% of overall military spending. A completely inadequate naval budget for any serious extra-European conquest. Early in the war, Hitler showed very little interest in conquering Britain’s colonies in North Africa, despite Britain’s temporary military weakness there.
None of which stopped FDR from (once again) lying to the American people, and claiming that Hitler had formulated long-term plans to conquer the United States. FDR also said that Hitler’s long-term goal was world conquest.
The above was hardly the only piece of deliberately deceitful anti-Nazi propaganda which had been spread by corrupt, evil politicians. Other talking points include the claims that the Nazis made lampshades out of human skin, soap out of human fat, the claim that Hitler described Nazism as a “big lie,” the jig Hitler supposedly did after the fall of France, the claim or implication that the Nazis could have fed all the people within their own borders, etc. Each of those claims are complete fiction. The claim that the Nazis embedded the dead bodies of foreign workers into cement walls sounds like more of the same.
I do agree, however, that during WWII the Nazis turned millions of non-Germans into conscripted laborers. Germany was fighting for its very existence against foes much larger and more powerful than itself. Conscripting all able-bodied people was a matter of absolute military necessity. I also acknowledge that many of these workers died of starvation. (Despite Hitler’s order that they be fed.) The Churchill/FDR food blockade made it physically impossible for Germany to feed all the people within its borders.
Western plutocrats worked very hard to create the impression that WWII was a war between the humanitarian Allies and the anti-humanitarian Axis. How did the plutocrats create that impression, when they themselves had vigorously rejected humanitarianism? They (very quietly) imposed a food blockade on Germany, then (very loudly) blamed Hitler for everyone who died as a result of that blockade. This was before the Internet, so the plutocrats’ ability to suppress information was quite considerable.
Suggested Topics
