Your attitude is indeed very simple and exactly as I described. And very predictable. You use the label Nazi to flag political opponents of any kind from Pinochet to the Tea Party and construct a self defense situation, to justify violence against them. Simple fact is that you can condemn and despise Augusto Pinochet for his violent methods, for murder and torture, but to label him as a Nazi is preposterous. His politics had more incommon with the ideology with the man in your signature than with the one in mine, you can even say Chile was a miniature laboratory for the Chicago Boys. Many of the dictatorships in Latin America were kind of conservative-extremist regimes, often put in charge or at least protected and by the US to protect the interests of their companies (later on it mixed up with Cold War interests, for which they supported regimes that did not completely fit in the agenda of their companies, but Pinochet is a typical market-radical). You label them as Nazis to keep your primitive world view intact, in which violence is justified for you (as the opponent is a Nazi, whose aim is to exterminate you). I am sure you find a primitive argument to label McCarthy as a Nazi too, of course as a traitor and quislings who prosecuted innocent patriots like the Rosenbergs, who helped the progressive Soviet Union to build an atomic bomb. Like those Baltic people who joined the Waffen-SS or the Wehrmacht to fight Stalin are of course from your point of view quislings and traitors and of course they all did nothing else than killing Jews all day, but to be honest, your moves to invert facts are not only simple, but stupid. They were simply fighting for their lives, nothing more, nothing less. Of course there were war criminals, but the Finnish people e.g. did not even have anti-Semitic laws, so your straw puppet that these volunteers joined the German crusade is a lie. Very easy to look through. You hate them simply because they did not put your interests over their own, so you have to take another Nazi-label and make it stick, to have your cheap self-defense excuse but everyone can see that it does not. It is funny that you claim your statement "no paseran" as untouched by the Spanish Civil War and free from any sympathy with these communists in there because of your motivation. If I copied your pathetic arguments, I would label you as a communist now, who of course all want to kill me and billions of other people, which justifies any violence to wipe you out, but that would be a little cheap and I am not a friend of whitch hunting and it is IMO up to you what you say here or not. Just for the historic truths the Republicans did not prosecute a few Catholic priests who sympathized with the Franco regime, but executed 80 000 people during their "purges". Your choice of words and your euphemisms are strange for someone who has no sympathy with these Communists. Then again, these numbers include countless victims in their own rows, anarchists vs. communists, Leninists vs. non-Leninists, these victims are not bothering me, I am pragmatic, I don't care if these commies were put in the graves by other commies, by Falangists, Franco's people, criminals or by accident. They are dead and Stalin was unable to get Spain in his claws. You seem to be obsessed by Nazi hunting. In my whole life I used violence only as ultima ratio to wipe out people who were a serious threat. Up to 1990 I approved the death penalty and state of emergency laws against left wing terrorists and self proclaimed nazi hunters like the Red Army Fraction, but in 1990 they lost the game irreversible. I think now it was good they kept their ruined and wicked lifes, they were murders, but they are broken, their supporters in East Germany are no longer in charge. They still would like to kill like Carlos and others, but they do not have the power. I do not see a reason for such an obsession. White Sharks will kill me too, if they get me, but I don't waste my lifetime with hunting them, I can either avoid to meet them or take the risk, but hunting them, because they would potentially kill me?? That's nonsense. And Nazism was beaten 45 years before. I do fear bankers, that lost any relation to the reality and play with our money more than anything else in the world at the moment. Even more than gang violence (in many parts of America a serious problem) and more than Islamists. And all these problems are real, not secterian left-overs of the past.
It would be convenient for you if that was my argument. It is not. Of course I recognize that there are difference between Nazis (even between Strasserites and Hitlerites), fascists (and the Italian and Spanish versions were quite different), and conservative populist authoritarians (from Peron to Pinochet). In the broadest sense even authoritarians like islamic fascists or Putin style nationalists will also be drawn into thw wide camp that I describe as people who under certain circumstances will threaten my freedom. Even communists too. They are all very different. But what makes them the same is that when, by their actions, they become a threat to my life and liberty, then I am justified in taking proportional action against them to protect myself. I make this argument because I am, as a liberal, concerned to explain clearly where I will defend someone's right to free speech, including such scumbags, and where I will see it justified to smash their heads against the pavement - which was Lon Trotsky's prescriptio. Unlike Trotsky, I will allow these people rights, so long as they refrain from threatening my liberty and life. I can, in this recognize the danger that these types reaching power to my liberty and life actually poses. For someone who styles themselves an American Nazi I can be fairly certain that their elevation to any position of power would presage my persecution; a fascist may decide to mimic Franco's butchery or he may merely retain a fondness for authoritarian moralizing. The crcumstances will determine what actions of self defence will be justifiable, really along the lines of the moral justification for wars that are developed by Catholic philosophers, with the extent of violence being subject to the scale of the threat. The fine distinctions and judgements will of course be invisible to a Nazi who will see this as simple bourgeois moralizing, as disgusting to their sensibilities as the very notions of free speech, freedom of the press and other such liberal decadence. Races are to purged, disabled people euthanized, political opponents shot. All very, very simple indeed. When it comes to finer people like Pinochet, then of course it is slightly more complicated, and young liberals or socialists cannot be too certain as to whether they will be dropped from helicopters into the ocean. A Nazi would of course see a liberal's hesitation here as weakness. But a liberal does see a difference between an ideology which with a hundred per cent certainty will kill you and one, like Mussolini's, where you might have a chance. To a Nazi, this kind of moral relection is hilarious, if they see it that is. Otherwise they will miss it and just come out with the crude accusation that we are just like them. In the sad vulgar little world that they live, they win both ways. They were quislings because they aped the actions of Quisling. They were traitors to their country and to civilization. That's not that complicated. And when they committed war crimes they were of course not "fighting for their lives" but committing murder and genocide. Now people like you come on here and eulogize them because they had big muscles or some other crap. It's clear that this is part of the modern movement to demonize minorities and non aryan races. It is clear that this is part of the movement that murders and burns today, as it did then. Back then Nazis, quislings and collborators found it morally convenient to use the threat of Bolshevism to send liberals and democrats to Dachau, to gas little Rroma children, and to shoot Jewish families into their graves. Now you can't use the big bad USSR any more so you use this feeble argument that I must "have been" a supporter of the USSR. Very tenuous. This is just a slur made without any evidence or foundation. You can't find anything I have said that showed me to to be a communist so you invent that because I must be anti-McCarthy, who destroyed peoples lives by their mere association with anyone who had been to a communist meeting, then I must ipso facto be a communist. This is the best you can do? Rather pathetic, don't you think? Wouldn't it just have been easier to say "you smell, you dirty commie". The intellectual power of such a statement would have been as impressive. I have sympathy with those people who wanted a democratic republican Spain and I hate visceally the Communists who destroyed this movement from within. You can label all anti-fascists "communists" as much as you like. It only underlines the simplistic approach of Nazis and how easy it makes their lives when it just sends the whol lot of us to their camps, from constitutional conservatives to the most idealistic young Marxist. Except it is you who quotes a Nazi in your signature, whereas I don't approvingly quote any communist. Labelling someone who approves of Rockwell as a Nazi is perfectly reasonable (although I have not quite done that with you, as I prefer to address your "arguments"). Labeling someone as a communist because they oppose Nazis, is of course the reason why most of the Dutch government was sent to Dachau in the 1940s. As to the rest... boring drivel...
Why? You wish to make this discussion personal? Clearly I would be eliminated for my political views and hostility to Nazims, as well as my attachment to democratioc ideals. I am a member of at least one other group that would have been persecuted as well.
The SS were good as were and are all elite units of most armies. However, to ask which is the best soldiers of all time is to ask what is the best car. Its IMPOSSIBLE to answer to everyones liking or to be honest its impossible to answer accurately. Far too subjective. Soldiers are only as good as their leaders and equipment and supplies etc. I could take three 18 year old guys of any nationality and train them in the rank basics and pit them against a SS platoon or a even a modern seal team and win. IF the seals/SS were exhausted out of ammo food and water etc they would be easy to defeat. I forget how many German troops were employed at Stalingrad but they were utterly defeated and 91,000 German soldiers were taken prisoner by the Russians. They lost directly because their leaders failed them, and the tenacity of the Russian soldier and their best and most vicious ally the Siberian winter. So any race creed nationality is the best solider, if he has the right training leaders and equipment IMO. Which solider do I prefer? If I had to pick one still its a general answer; Any USA solider because their technology enhanced equipment and support is the best in the world. reva
The Nazis would want to rub me out because I support Israel for religious reasons. In othe words I am a Christian Zionist. Additionally, I mistrust all government so much that I wouldn’t be as naïve as the Jewish people were (God bless em'). Instead of going to my death like a sheep I would be more like a ambush predator i.e. a resistance member, back then or now if the USA was invaded etc. The Nazis murdered more than Jewish people, and probably they would of considered me an undesirable even if I were not a Zionist because back in the day, before I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior I rode with a outlaw MC (motorcycle club). In any case I fear the time will soon be ripe in Europe and maybe even in the USA for a new good demigod like Hitler to emerge. If that happens, and he attempts to become dictator, hopefully someone will reach out and touch him with .223 version of righteous judgment. reva
You are describing acts of self-defense here. I would say as most people would see it. If one threatens your life nearly all people will see it as justified to stop him, no matter what it takes. This does not even com close to your statements you wrote above. Let me add here, they are traitors for you because they fought for their own lifes. Either they were to exist or to die like a high percentage of the Baltic population did in Stalins claws. I responded to this argument. You make up a story here suggesting that all the foreign volunteers committed war crimes, which is not the case. The men of the Blue Division e.g. who later on became members of the Waffen-SS are known for a better behaviour towards the Russian civilians than many Wehrmacht divisions. As I mentioned the Finish forces as well, but you stick to your argument that they were all traitors of their nation, because they fought for Hitler instead of Stalin. Again a very simple move, you take out war crimes to blame the collective group of volunteers for that who betrayed civilization. If I applied this lousy simplification on the Red Army, I could easily refer to some war crimes and insult the whole Red Army as traitors of civilization, war criminals and quislings. I did not say you are a supporter of the USSR or a communist, I took your argument concerning my quote and used it onto your "no paseran" in the same simple minded manner. Although I did use the conjunctive by intent, you are too upset to calm down. And yes your argument is pathetic, not my method to turn it back on you to make it clear for you how pathetic it is. In fact, I cannot exactly say what you think of by "no paseran". What I was indeed referring to is your ignorance about historic facts of WWII. I cannot remeber to have called you a communist anyway. No you are becoming silly, "no paseran" is of course a quote of a communist. I did not make the conclusion that you are a communist.
*scratches head* Lies? Actually I don't think I have really made a lot of claims or statements about the Waffen SS, or any other organizations. So I would love to know what lies I am supposed to have said. There, is that better?
