Politics Aussie Fascists and (neo)Nazis

[cartwright]

The German air raid in Rotterdam killed 854 civilian casualties.

German bombing of Rotterdam - Wikipedia

Not quite the same scale as what came back the other way in cities like Dresden and Hamburg.

And I didnt say the Germans were innocent in this regard. They also hit Warsaw pretty hard in the early days of the war.

Yes, but Rotterdam was flattened. IIRC, Allies were not heavily bombing civilian areas until Germans bombed Rotterdam….

On topic- agree with you that the lead up to WW2, should be understood.

This is a great memoir to understand the sentiment of the time in Germany

https://www.amazon.com.au/Defying-Hitler-Memoir-Sebastian-Haffner/dp/0312421133

Defying Hitler

Written in 1939 and unpublished until 2000, Sebastian Haffner's memoir of the rise of Nazism in Germany offers a unique portrait of the lives of ordinary Ger...

us.macmillan.com

 

[Crankyhawk]

You dont hang leaders of defeated armies unless they've committed war crimes.

It's not a crime under international law to be a President.

Do you really think that the Nazi party would have held to those norms? Autocratic states do autocratic things - like suppressing and murdering opposition

YOu seem to think that the Nazi party of Germany planned to follow international law. I suspect they intended to re write it in their own image and desires. Thats what autocrats want to do.

 

[Malifice]

Do you really think that the Nazi party would have held to those norms?

Yes. The German Wehrmacht was dominated by Prussian Junker elites, who tended to play by the established rules and norms of combat (at least when it came to Western opponents; it was no holds barred vs the Russians).

Germany only resorted to the Blitz in response to British indiscriminate bombing campaigns, and only after filing several protests.

Of course, Goering (who was in charge of the Luftwaffe) didnt exact have a stock of strategic bombers to fall back on (like the Brits did with the Lancaster and the Seppos with the B17's). He was pretty much limited to dive-bombers and V2 Rockets.

YOu seem to think that the Nazi party of Germany planned to follow international law.

And for very good reason. Even Hitler repeatedly gave the regime the trappings of Legality. Every step he took he cited legal precedent, did it via referendum or used legal means to achieve his goals.

That includes becoming dictator, annexing Austria, and his 'just war' on the West and Russia.

Remember, from the Germans perspective, they were only reclaiming lands taken from them at the end of WW1 and that were full of ethnic Germans and wanted to integrate into Germany (so it was a matter for Germans and not for anyone else) and were also reuniting with Austria (and the Austrians wanted this as well and voted unanimously for it).

In response 'evil' France and the UK (controlled by 'liberal banking families and international finance') declared war.

Germany then did nothing against either power (the Phony war) for several months and actively sought peace with both powers. France and the UK refused and started to mobilize an Army at Dunkirk.

Germany had no other option other than a preemptive strike through the Low Countries to drive the British expeditionary force back to the sea and knock France out of the war by taking Paris.

Russia was a full-blown unilateral invasion but framed as a preemptive strike (and defensive in nature) against the 'Leftist Hordes'. 'Cultural Marxists, International bankers and Elites' had imposed Far Left socialism/ communism on the 'Slavic hordes' on Germanies eastern border and were poisoning Germanies culture with leftism, degenerate art, LGBTI agenda, feminism, ANFIFA and all sorts of 'evils'.

That was a conflict that was inevitable given the ideologies of Stalin and Hitler. The Germans just struck the first blow.

You seem to have strong opinions on a topic you seem to know next to nothing about. I suggest doing what all middle aged dudes do, and go away and study up on the War.

It happens to us all around 40.

 

[Malifice]

Yes, but Rotterdam was flattened. IIRC, Allies were not heavily bombing civilian areas until Germans bombed Rotterdam….

Rotterdam was most definitely used as a justification. The Germans did seek to only hit military targets though. 850 civilian casualties is high, but given the technology of the day, not a sign of a deliberate attack on civilians.

Hermann Göring's general order, issued on 30 June 1940, stated:

The war against England is to be restricted to destructive attacks against industry and air force targets which have weak defensive forces. ... The most thorough study of the target concerned, that is vital points of the target, is a pre-requisite for success. It is also stressed that every effort should be made to avoid unnecessary loss of life amongst the civilian population.
— Hermann Göring[132]

Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia.

The Germans sought (at least initially, and in the West) to avoid deliberately targeting civilians.

The Allies on the other hand, deliberately targeted them from pretty much day 1.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Yes. The German Wehrmacht was dominated by Prussian Junker elites, who tended to play by the established rules and norms of combat (at least when it came to Western opponents; it was no holds barred vs the Russians).

Germany only resorted to the Blitz in response to British indiscriminate bombing campaigns, and only after filing several protests.

Of course, Goering (who was in charge of the Luftwaffe) didnt exact have a stock of strategic bombers to fall back on (like the Brits did with the Lancaster and the Seppos with the B17's). He was pretty much limited to dive-bombers and V2 Rockets.



And for very good reason. Even Hitler repeatedly gave the regime the trappings of Legality. Every step he took he cited legal precedent, did it via referendum or used legal means to achieve his goals.

That includes becoming dictator, annexing Austria, and his 'just war' on the West and Russia.

Remember, from the Germans perspective, they were only reclaiming lands taken from them at the end of WW1 and that were full of ethnic Germans and wanted to integrate into Germany (so it was a matter for Germans and not for anyone else) and were also reuniting with Austria (and the Austrians wanted this as well and voted unanimously for it).

In response 'evil' France and the UK (controlled by 'liberal banking families and international finance') declared war.

Germany then did nothing against either power (the Phony war) for several months and actively sought peace with both powers. France and the UK refused and started to mobilize an Army at Dunkirk.

Germany had no other option other than a preemptive strike through the Low Countries to drive the British expeditionary force back to the sea and knock France out of the war by taking Paris.

Russia was a full-blown unilateral invasion but framed as a preemptive strike (and defensive in nature) against the 'Leftist Hordes'. 'Cultural Marxists, International bankers and Elites' had imposed Far Left socialism/ communism on the 'Slavic hordes' on Germanies eastern border and were poisoning Germanies culture with leftism, degenerate art, LGBTI agenda, feminism, ANFIFA and all sorts of 'evils'.

That was a conflict that was inevitable given the ideologies of Stalin and Hitler. The Germans just struck the first blow.

You seem to have strong opinions on a topic you seem to know next to nothing about. I suggest doing what all middle aged dudes do, and go away and study up on the War.

It happens to us all around 40.

I find it difficult to see that the attitudes would not have hardened had the Germans won the war after all that had occurred. Sure maybe if they win in an early quick war maybe it turns out nice like you say. But a victory after everything that occurred I think the bitterness would have led to reprisals.

 

[Malifice]

I find it difficult to see that the attitudes would not have hardened had the Germans won the war after all that had occurred. Sure maybe if they win in an early quick war maybe it turns out nice like you say. But a victory after everything that occurred I think the bitterness would have led to reprisals.

There would have been reprisals, but for war crimes (namely the Strategic bombing campaign).

Germany didnt go around arbitrarily executing heads of foreign States they captured (Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Norway, France, Denmark, Luxembourg etc). By and large they treated Western Allies relatively well, allowing a semblance of self-government (subject to the Military Authority) including fair treatment of Allied POW's (other than the Russians).

Jews, liberals, LGBTI+, socialists, Romani, Slavs etc on the other hand would have copped it in the neck, because 'Nazis'.

 

[Blue1980]

humanising isn't the same as sympathising

we have a tendency to call anyone who does something bad a monster

you see it all the time even just with normal violent crime

it should be a scarier proposition to show that Hitler was human after all than some strange monster

because the first shows that the capacity is in all of us for this sort of behaviour

Exactly, this is why people fail to see authoritarianism rising at the moment as they expect to see them as these cartoonish villains and not real people.

People originally didn’t take Hitler seriously, thought he was a poor man’s Moussolini.

 

[Blue1980]

Yeah. 'Lebensraum' alone is a concept without limits. As a leader your people will always need territory to expand into and resources to expend. And when the ethnic group you're a part of has supremacy over all others and a clear genetic superiority cleansing the locals to MAKE that living space viable for you would merely be like culling dangerous animals, wouldn't it?

No, I don't think Hitler would have stopped with the conquest of the Soviet Union and the U.K either. He was already striking south into Africa, for one thing.

Yep he wasn’t going to stop. There may of been an uneasy Cold War style situation with Japan if they had also won, but no way they’d have just stopped.

 

[Blue1980]

Ambition is always starving in some people. The more you feed it the hungrier it gets. Hitler's terrible ambition ate him alive.

Ambition bites the nails of success?

 

[Blue1980]

Agree to disagree. He was quite clearly insane. His ideas were not those of a sane individual.

I think over time it was extreme hubris and possibly somewhat insane, but that was largely due to having yes men around him, feted as a god and he’d got everything he wanted for basically all of the 1930s and into the early part of the world war. He though the could accomplish anything, that he was infallible.

And he was, until he wasn’t.

 

[Malifice]

Exactly, this is why people fail to see authoritarianism rising at the moment as they expect to see them as these cartoonish villains and not real people.

This.

Portraying the Nazis as moustache twirling villains hell bent on world domination, does literally nothing to help people understand how such a murderous regime can come into being, in an otherwise developed, civilized, liberal republic.

The Nazis were evil. They were responsible for the Holocaust that killed 6 million (mainly) Jews in a coordinated and industrialized act of genocide. They imprisoned millions more people (liberals, socialists, LGBTI+, leftists etc) as slave labor in abhorrent conditions (many of whom did not survive), and executed tens of thousands more for speaking out against the regime. They practiced eugenics, conducted medical experiments on human beings and murdered the mentally unwell. They implemented laws that targeted and discriminated against women, minorities and LGBTI+ people. They used a pretense of legality to ignore and subvert the Rule of Law, and abolish the separation of the Powers, to create a totalitarian State, where individual liberty and freedoms were subservient to the national interest.

There shouldn't be any fear for showing them as who they really were, without the cartoonish 'World domination' aspect thrown in.

I feel helping people understand who they really were, and what they were really about, would do a lot more good than bad.

Heck, it would take a lot away from Neo Nazis, who currently find fertile recruiting ground in selling the Nazis as 'Not what Hollywood makes them out to be' (which is partly true).

 

[ferball]

It's incredibly serious.

If we want to learn how to avoid making the mistakes of the past, its vital to look at the Nazi regime as humans (which they were) with human prejudices and human motivations.

Depicting them as moustache twirling monstrous villains hell bent on world domination totally misses the point, and gives us nothing to actually learn from.

People elected in a Nazi regime (who were open about what they were and what they were about), dobbed in neighbors to the Gestapo by the thousands, and were then complicit in a regime that orchestrated the murder of 6 million humans in concentration camps.

Humans did that. Which is why humanizing them is vital so we can understand how and why.

It was probably closer to 15 million people that they murdered.

 

[ferball]

No, that's not (exclusively) the case.

Hitler was an ethnic nationalist. He had zero problems with a separate State for every single one of the 'races' of the world, and supported them.

Ethnic nationalists believe each race should have its own lands and State, free from other races, and that ethnicity should be the basis for membership in a State.

Not just your own race. Each race.

Again, this is why you'll see Malcom X on stage with White Supremacists. It's because despite hating each other, they actually have a lot in common.

I'm pretty sure you won't see Malcolm X onstage with KKK members at any time. That's misinformation.

 

[ferball]

Once again, this assumes you take them at their word. Very trustworthy people these nazis. Why would we doubt them?

Ever considered it was out of desperation? When white people make and break the rules as they please there's probably not much that's off the table when you're constantly seeing your people raped and murdered with impunity. I bet Malcolm X didn't exactly enjoy sharing the stage with those white hooded mother*ers.

It never happened.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I'm pretty sure you won't see Malcolm X onstage with KKK members at any time. That's misinformation.

Malcolm is a small business owner residing in Wynnum, Queensland.

 

[faible]

Remember, from the Germans perspective, they were only reclaiming lands taken from them at the end of WW1 and that were full of ethnic Germans and wanted to integrate into Germany (so it was a matter for Germans and not for anyone else) and were also reuniting with Austria (and the Austrians wanted this as well and voted unanimously for it).

You could rewrite this with Putin and Ukraine and it would be an accurate description.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[ferball]

Malcolm is a small business owner residing in Wynnum, Queensland.

View attachment 1913941

Awesome.

I think the head of the US neo nazi movement, George Lincoln Rockwell did actually appear onstage with Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad (Head of the Nation of Islam.) He even expressed admiration for EM and called him "the Black Hitler." In support of the NoI repatriating black people from America to Africa. Which does fit with what Malafice is talking about re ethno nation states.

But Malcolm X never appeared onstage with KKK members. Allegedly they had one secret meeting once, it came to light years later, and some people say that's what started Malcolm X's disillusionment with the Nation of Islam and Elijah Muhammad.

There are many black people that think EM had Malcolm X killed and some think one of the contributing reasons was to keep that meeting secret after X left the NoI. In case he went public about it.

 

[Malifice]

I'm pretty sure you won't see Malcolm X onstage with KKK members at any time. That's misinformation.

No, it's not.

Malcolm X met with KKK leaders to discuss the creation of a black state, new book claims

Read the above.

Also, Malcom X was extremely pro racial segregation:

He was the public face of the organization for 12 years, advocating Black empowerment and separation of Black and White Americans, and criticizing Martin Luther King Jr. and the mainstream civil rights movement for its emphasis on nonviolence and racial integration.

Malcolm X - Wikipedia

Malcolm X was a member of the Nation of Islam (NOI), and promoted the creation of an independent Blacks only ethno State.

Which the KKK also supported (they wanted a Whites only ethno State).

The meeting was the beginning of an uneasy alliance between the NOI and the Ku Klux Klan on shared goals of racial separation. It was also the beginning of Malcolm’s disillusionment with the Black Muslim organization and his embrace of the more mainstream civil rights movement.

‘Well, What Do You Mean, We Can’t Join the Klan?’

After 12 years of advocating for a Whites and Blacks only States, Malcom X distanced himself from the NOI and took a less radical 'Whites/ Blacks only' approach to civil rights and was booted out of the NOI, where he aligned with pro integrationists (like Martin Luther King).

Rumors persist that it was the NOI that had him assassinated.

 

[ferball]

You said you could see him on stage with them. Which you can't.

Its not the same as being ordered to a secret meeting that pissed him off and probably led to him leaving the NoI.

 

[ferball]

I like how you've repeated what I posted a post later and yet still claim he appeared onstage with the KKK.

When everything you posted clearly indicates he didn't.

Unless you're talking about the QLD tobacconist cos if that guy was in the klan I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Malifice]

You said you could see him on stage with them. Which you can't.

Its not the same as being ordered to a secret meeting that pissed him off and probably led to him leaving the NoI.

He spent literally 12 years advocating for separate States for Black and White Americans.

Which is exactly what the KKK and White Nationalists also want.

Ethnic nationalists believe the best States are ones where ethnicity is the criterion for membership.

Both the KKK and Malcom X in his NOI days, would have supported a Whites only State, a Blacks only State, an 'Asians' only State and so forth.

Why? Because they're ethnic nationalists.

 

[CrazyJoeFevola]

They’re going to try and throw their weight around at Mardi Gras. Don’t know exact details.

 

[ferball]

He spent literally 12 years advocating for separate States for Black and White Americans.

Which is exactly what the KKK and White Nationalists also want.

Ethnic nationalists believe the best States are ones where ethnicity is the criterion for membership.

Both the KKK and Malcom X in his NOI days, would have supported a Whites only State, a Blacks only State, an 'Asians' only State and so forth.

Why? Because they're ethnic nationalists.

So?

Firstly as a black American in the pre civil rights era who could blame him.

Secondly, and the only real point I was making, he never appeared on stage with the KKK.

 

[Malifice]

So?

Firstly as a black American in the pre civil rights era who could blame him.

Im not 'blaming' him. I'm stating he was an ethnic nationalist. That was his ideology. He supported the creation of a Blacks only State, separate from a Whites only State (which he also supported).

If you're an ethnic nationalist, you're an ethnic nationalist.

When I'm talking to an ethnic nationalist (take for example, a White supremacist) I find they overwhelmingly support the notion of each 'race' living in its own State, with its own borders and its own rulers free from 'other races'. Not just your own race, each race.

The reason for this? Because they're ethnic nationalists.

Secondly, and the only real point I was making, he never appeared on stage with the KKK.

No, he only met with the KKK in Atlanta to discuss their shared rejection of integration, and the Nation of Islam’s hope of a black-only state. He stopped short of appearing on stage with them.

Malcolm X met with KKK leaders to discuss the creation of a black state, new book claims

I was thinking of his (and the NOI's predecessor and an influence on them and other black nationalists) Marcus Garvey:

Marcus Garvey - Wikipedia

He was also an ethnic nationalist. He believed in a Whites only and Blacks only State, and opposed integration.

 

[ferball]

Yep, altho I would say "black" isn't an ethnicity the way "German/Aryan" was in Hitler's use of the word and that one of the main reasons Garvey, the NoI and other black nationalists favoured black nationalism is because it provides them with a safe haven from oppression not because of inherently racist attitudes. Don't forget how ****ed the western world was for black people in those times. It was a disgraceful situation.

Black seperatism may have led to some bad situations if it had occurred - we're seeing that with Israel now - but if it had happened in Africa then perhaps we wouldn't see the land conflict we see between Israel and Palestine. Tho Liberia had its issues both early on and recently.

The acceptance of multiculturalism in western societies has certainly ended the popularity of black nationalism despite the limited gains its provided in ending oppression of black people in the US.