Post war anti-Germanism - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

'Cold war' communist versus capitalist ideological struggle (1946 - 1990) and everything else in the post World War II era (1946 onwards).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Friedrich
#13628663
The fact is that Adolf Hitler was democratically elected, the Germans bought the war on themselves by choosing someone who promised it, the deserved everything they got. It is not as if they can claim it was no their own doing, stop moaning.


Wow, thats borderline insane. It sounds like that the war was chosen on 1933, which is a total conspiracy theory. No provs, just some quotes which are not very good for an evidence. And, EVERYTHING THEY GOT? War is naturally, USA invades Vietnam, Russia invades Georgia, whatever, there are consequenses, but there is a line where the results of a war are not morallistic. Next time if China invades USA for some reasons, they just take California and some other states, and make USA as a communist pupet, do you think thats fair.

But i shouldnt answer on this stupid posts because it has nothing to do with the topic.

But thanks for your efforts!
By dttk0009
#13629339
Decky wrote:The fact is that Adolf Hitler was democratically elected, the Germans bought the war on themselves by choosing someone who promised it, the deserved everything they got. It is not as if they can claim it was no their own doing, stop moaning.


Revisionism at its finest.
By Smilin' Dave
#13629483
Decky wrote:The fact is that Adolf Hitler was democratically elected, the Germans bought the war on themselves by choosing someone who promised it, the deserved everything they got. It is not as if they can claim it was no their own doing, stop moaning.

Hitler never actually won a free and fair election. He became chancellor via appointment by then President Hindenberg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ele ... ember_1932
You'll note the fairly centrist SPD was still going quite strong in 1932, at the height of the economic crisis. And unlike the 1933 election, there wasn't the Reichstag fire etc. to impact voting. Did the 20% voting for the moderates 'deserve' it?
By Decky
#13630697
Wow, thats borderline insane. It sounds like that the war was chosen on 1933,


Pretty much, the Nazis were never shy about their desire to kill the untermench and wriggle out of the Versailles treaty that had been put in place to stop the Germans being able to feel their baser desires.

Next time if China invades USA for some reasons, they just take California and some other states, and make USA as a communist pupet, do you think thats fair.


No one invaded Germany it's a false comparison. German declared war on Poland on the 1st of September 1939, they started war with the western allies. On the 22nd of June 1941 they invaded the Soviets. No one attacked Germany, despite their evil in the First World War we treated the Germans with nothing but decency, and look where that got the world. Everything done to Germany was in self defense, the defense of the entire human race it was one of the very very rare just and noble wars.

It's just a shame they managed to reunite in the end, a strong Germany has always been a bad thing for the free world.

Hitler never actually won a free and fair election. He became chancellor via appointment by then President Hindenberg.


Maybe you should read your own link, the Nazis came first.

Did the 20% voting for the moderates 'deserve' it?


Did they put up any resistance to the regime or did they happily cooperate with the Nazis, round up Jews, gypsies, disabled people, Communists etc and turn them over the the SS for a gassing? If had my way everyone who worked in the German railway would have been there at Nuremberg, do you honestly thing there was any German working there who was not aware of the Holocaust?

"Oh Hans strangely packed trains today, and all going to Auschwitz"
Hmmm, don't worry Fritz it's probably fine, maybe they are all going on holiday."
By Smilin' Dave
#13630712
Decky wrote:Maybe you should read your own link, the Nazis came first.

...Do you know how democracies really work? To 'win' an election you have to be able to form government, which the Nazis couldn't. Maybe because all those non-Nazi parties together held a much larger slice of the votes?

Decky wrote:Did they put up any resistance to the regime or did they happily cooperate with the Nazis, round up Jews, gypsies, disabled people, Communists etc and turn them over the the SS for a gassing?

Their parties were banned, they were disarmed and the police were largely either working for the Nazis or were allowing them to operate without harassment. Not to mention that many parties made the error of being too dedicated to democracy: they opted not to send their militia into the street (the SPD for example once had the largest paramilitary of any political party) in the belief that democracy would triumph.

Now, would you like to cite a link implicating the SPD or its membership in concentration camps and extermination? Or did you just make shit up?
By ati373
#13630788
i thought about arguing a number of points but i think it comes down to this, you cannot be upset about the justified judgement of one person, white people do not go crazy when they see apartheid poetry. i think we have a case of diversive antics here, all genocide is bad but thats why comparisons should never be drawn between them. the Jewish poet who wrote that felt compelled through heritage to write that (exactly how you feel compelled to defend germans) and who are you to take offence to the practice of freedom of expression? it is not a right which is selectivley bestowed.

get off your high horse, that poem was meant for the offenders, not all germans, don't make it personal and do not make it about more 'striking' genocides, thats slightly twisted man.
By Mordimer
#13635251
I hate that Germans hate that they were once great. I hate that they are now pathetic, pacifist pussies without guts. I hate that they are ashamed of their own history. I hate that from the once proud and warlike nation they have turned into.....this.
And yet, I still, perhaps misguidedly, believe that Germany can rise once again. That germans will return to their true, pre-war selves. All it would take is a proper approach from the German propaganda.....but I know it's probably not going to happen. German propaganda is as anti-nazi as ever. Silly me.
By Smilin' Dave
#13635890
Mordimer wrote:I hate that Germans hate that they were once great. I hate that they are now pathetic, pacifist pussies without guts. I hate that they are ashamed of their own history. I hate that from the once proud and warlike nation they have turned into.....this.
And yet, I still, perhaps misguidedly, believe that Germany can rise once again. That germans will return to their true, pre-war selves. All it would take is a proper approach from the German propaganda.....but I know it's probably not going to happen. German propaganda is as anti-nazi as ever. Silly me.

I hate that all German history has been debased by some into a cartoonish military entity and nothing else. All great German achievements buried under a stupid narrative of kings, kaisers and generals invading other countries and killing people so that others can feel adequete.

The idea that Germany can't be great without lauding Nazism is the height of foolishness. Nazism nearly ruined Germany, nearly erased all of its historic achievements and its defeat resulted in a nation physically divided for decades. If anything it seems 'German propaganda' has failed to teach you some important lessons.
User avatar
By Friedrich
#13636145
I hate that all German history has been debased by some into a cartoonish military entity and nothing else. All great German achievements buried under a stupid narrative of kings, kaisers and generals invading other countries and killing people so that others can feel adequete.


I don't know which psychiatry has Internet, but you should tell me where you've got this bullshit before the nurse find you and put you in your strait jacket again.

Nazism nearly ruined Germany, nearly erased all of its historic achievements and its defeat resulted in a nation physically divided for decades.


Why should a nationalist state destroy itself? Where have you displace your brain and your logic?! The only one who destroied Germany where this international capitalists which couldn't accept a sovereign country.

Stop dreaming, anti-german liar!
User avatar
By peterm1988
#13636169
Friedrich wrote:Why should a nationalist state destroy itself? Where have you displace your brain and your logic?! The only one who destroied Germany where this international capitalists which couldn't accept a sovereign country.

Stop dreaming, anti-german liar!


Ok, let's just assume that you're right for one brief, disgusting second.

What does that change? You and your ilk still lost, dragging the rest of Germany down with you. And if you think for one brief moment that a second go on the Nazi roundabout wouldn't result in even greater destruction for Germany, you've got a screw lose. I mean, seriously. Germany didn't exist between 1945 and 1990. That, plus chaos, the death of millions and a virtually indelible sense of guilt is the price Germany paid for losing control of itself between 1933 and 1945.

I'm just glad you're a tiny, crazy part of your country's landscape and that the vast, vast, VAST majority of Germans would not only disown you, but [redacted - SD]
User avatar
By Friedrich
#13636225
Germany didn't exist between 1945 and 1990.


Cool story!

Can you send me the link to your joke-website?
By Rich
#13636401
I think two things get muddled up. For me in WWII clearly it was right to back the British, French and American nationalist bigots, in their war against the German and Japanese nationalist bigots. but the way people talk you'd think there was something particularly immoral about the Nazis. The British Empire was the world s greatest terror machine in its hey day. Given its huge size, and the British homelands limited population the British tended to be more subtle, prudent and cautious than the Nazis, but does this mean they were more moral? In the final decades of British rule in what is now the United States the British wanted peace with the native Americans while the local were just itching to commit genocide, but does that mean that Americans should feel shame while British people feel proud? Its just different situations produce different outcomes. Why does no one expect the Romanians to be ashamed to their history?
By Smilin' Dave
#13636964
Leaving aside Friedrich's 4chan-esque capering and limp insults in favour of something like grown up discussion:
Why should a nationalist state destroy itself?

When a group opts to change all that it has been, opts to abandon the nation-state, it destroys itself. So when Nazi Germany crafted a government fairly alien in style to anything German (or its substates) had ever had, when the Nazis promoted phoney religions like 'Positive Christianity', when the Nazis started destroying Germany's rich cultural past, they were destroying Germany. When Hitler ordered the physical destruction of Germany in 1945 (eg. railways pulled up, infrastructure destroyed), he tried to destroy Germany... When Nazi Germany started a war with all the great powers of the world, a war they couldn't reasonably hope to win, they risked the destruction of Germany. It could go on if you like, but I think you knew all of this anyway.

It isn't too far fetched for the Nazis to be self-destructive, given their ideology promoted violence and action for its own sake. The obsession with national re-birth could just as easily have conceived of a need for a 'time of struggle' first. Never mind that it had a history of attacking its own adherents (Rohm, Stasser etc.).

I recommend Christopher Clark's Iron Kingdom as a history that looks at Prussia (and subsequently its role in a unified Germany) as something deeper than a country that makes wars and nothing else. It also notes the bizarre political tendency to re-envisage Germany as nothing but militaristic and hyper-statist. Now that I've presented a source, I expect you to source your disagreement.

The only one who destroied Germany where this international capitalists which couldn't accept a sovereign country.

I didn't read about international capitalists hanging around during the Gleiwitz Incident. Care to elaborate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
User avatar
By Friedrich
#13637198
When a group opts to change all that it has been, opts to abandon the nation-state, it destroys itself. So when Nazi Germany crafted a government fairly alien in style to anything German (or its substates) had ever had, when the Nazis promoted phoney religions like 'Positive Christianity', when the Nazis started destroying Germany's rich cultural past, they were destroying Germany. When Hitler ordered the physical destruction of Germany in 1945 (eg. railways pulled up, infrastructure destroyed), he tried to destroy Germany... When Nazi Germany started a war with all the great powers of the world, a war they couldn't reasonably hope to win, they risked the destruction of Germany. It could go on if you like, but I think you knew all of this anyway.


In someway I have to agree. But just because you make a different government you are not destroying culture or nations. If you arguee on that way, the democrats are destroying Germany now heavily (which I believe in)! Because there is nothing German left in our country after WW2, which is not a result of national socialism but so called reeducation and americanization. If you arguee on that way I could say that the whole second World War is just a result of Versailles! Well, and another thing i have to agree too: Declaring War was the right solution, but like in every mistake: Hindsight is easier than foresight.

Germany should have wait, which means to accept the degrading behaivour of Poland & co. and the mussmurdering on the Polish-German border. War is not good, but an acceptable tool.

The first post of you without "big" lies and foolishness. Congratulations!
By Rich
#13637203
Lets remember the British, Americans, and French imposed punishing reparations on Germany, but wouldn't allow Germany to export to their empires in order to pay them off. They also denied access to the raw materials from their empires. They destroyed the German economy. Six million were unemployed, when Hitler came to power in January 33. By the beginning of 1939, Germany had both made a substantial economic recovery and had regained power and dignity in the White international community. If Hitler had died on January 1, 1939, he would probably have been remembered as one of the greatest Germans that ever lived. Hitler's assertive approach, not taking any nonsense from the allies, got results that none of the other alternative leaders in 1933 would have done. In 1939 Hitler could have led and united central Europe and led its defence against Stalin's totalitarian, mass murder terror machine. He didn't, he chose to embark on a path of terror and empire building that was far worse than Stalin. But why are the Germans to blame for this? Its not like Hitler consulted them in 1939. Blaming Germans for the horrors of Nazism is a pathetic, sick joke. The Nazis were racist bigots, but so were all ethnic European (White) Conservative and centrist leaders of the time. Politicians say all sorts of toss before they get into power. When German Conservatives voted in 1932, were they meant to think, "ooh, I better not vote for the Nazis, because if they get into power they might murder 6 million Jews, or I better not vote for the Nazis, because if they get into power they might launch a war of slavery and annihilation in the east"? Its so silly, it beggars belief, that seemingly intelligent can take this drivel seriously: the notion that Germans are to blame for the crimes of Nazism. The primary blame lies with Conservatism, the secondary blame lies with religious Communism.

Even if Germans did know about the gas chambers, so fucking what? What were they meant to do, write a letter to their local Gauleiter? Send a petition to Heinrich Himmlar?
Last edited by Rich on 22 Feb 2011 14:07, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#13637213
When German Conservatives voted in 1932, were they meant to think, "ooh, I better not vote for the Nazis, because if they get into power they might murder 6 million Jews, or they might launch a war of slavery and annihilation in the east"?

I seem to recall a celebrity autobiography published in the 1920s by a famous German politician. I believe it was called I'm Camp or something like that....

Its so silly, it beggars belief, that seemingly intelligent can take seriously the notion that Germans are to blame.

The doctrine of collective responsibility is indeed silly. And rather fascist in its own right.

The primary blame lies with Conservatism, the secondary blame lies with religious Communism.

Lolwut? :eh:
User avatar
By Lightman
#13637217
Why should a nationalist state destroy itself? Where have you displace your brain and your logic?! The only one who destroied Germany where this international capitalists which couldn't accept a sovereign country.
Really? I was unaware that the western capitalist powers did anything to stop the expanding power of Germany until it invaded a sovereign state unprovoked (not to mention the time the western capitalist powers allowed Germany to annex sovereign states).

Though we're all well aware that "international capitalist" means "Jew" here.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#13637219
not to mention the time the western capitalist powers allowed Germany to annex sovereign states

When did this happen? They allowed Hitler to bite chunks off sovereign states, but his invasion of Czechoslovakia was illegal and violated every agreement he had with the other Western powers. And when he tried to annex Poland, France and Britain declared war against him.
By Rich
#13637238
Potemkin wrote:Lolwut? :eh:

It was Conservative nationalism, Patriotism and Monotheism that created the catastrophe of the First World War. It was a catastrophic war that could only lead to a catastrophic peace, because such vast sacrifices both in blood of the men at the front and the economic collapse and hunger of the home front, could only be justified by supreme victory. Clearly everyone couldn't have supreme victory, not even all the victors, so even though Italy was on the winning side it was quite understandable that Italian patriots felt that their sacrifices were not properly rewarded. After WWI, the four great hypocrites, the US, France, Britain and Belgium were havin a laff. They were taking the piss. They wanted to give up war, a vital and central aspect of national, patriotic and religious identity. This was asking a lot in itself. Most of the world hadn't reached the stage where they were ready to give up war. But they also wanted a permanent peace where they controlled most of the world. Belgium was the biggest joker of the lot. They had a huge empire considering their size and that they weren't even close to being a great power. They grabbed bits of the German homeland, they grabbed German colonies, they bled Germany for reparations and then in 1940, thought they had a right to keep their ill-gotten gains without even fighting for them. From a Conservative nationalist perspective, Germany's claim to the rights and privileges of a great power were not unreasonable. It was Britain and France, who claimed territory and colonies, beyond what anyone could reasonably consider fair. So WWI and the, vindictive, malevolent, hate filled world that it left in its aftermath was the fault of Conservatism in all its manifestations, whether it was German nationalism, genocidal Islam (in the Ottoman empire) or WASP American nationalism.

Bolshevism became a form of quasi monotheism, it created a quasi theocracy. The party was the priesthood with its God (the historical material process) ordained right to rule and its zealous heretic burning theology (scientific materialism). The highly reasonable fear of Bolshevism fuelled the rise of the extreme right, so Leninist, Stalinist, Trotskyist and Anarchist Communism also share in the responsibility for the Nazi and Second World War catastrophe. Although Anarchists and then later Trotsky disowned the Soviet state, they all contributed to the creation of the Communist dictatorship. It was an anarchist who dispersed the Russian Constituent assembly in 1918.

When the twin towers fell on 9/11 to Wahhabi maniacs, it once again demonstrated how WWI, "The war to end all wars" was followed by "The peace to end all peace."
User avatar
By Potemkin
#13637257
Although Anarchists and then later Trotsky disowned the Soviet state, they all contributed to the creation of the Communist dictatorship.

Actually, Trotsky never disowned the Soviet state (after all, he had helped to construct it, and almost single-handedly saved it from destruction during the Civil War). He regarded the Soviet state under Stalin as a "deformed workers' state", which he regarded as still being preferable to a capitalist-imperialist state.

It was an anarchist who dispersed the Russian Constituent assembly in 1918.

Actually, it was a Left Socialist-Revolutionary.

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 28, Thursday No separate peace deal with G[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The Settlement program is an example of slow ethn[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Meanwhile, your opponents argue that everyone e[…]