Right Wing Discussion Thread XIV: Join the Friendkorps

[Confederate States of German America]

Again I agree the Italians made adequate German auxiliaries under German command in several cases.

Any basic reading of the Italian operations in North Africa would disprove this. They were not German auxiliaries, they were the main Axis force. Rommel's abrasive nature, such as denying them logistics and abandoning them as needed, to name two examples, gravely hindered them.

None of the cases you cited had them fighting on their own. All those cases had them under German command fighting as German auxiliaries.

The Italian 8th Army had its own sector under an Italian commander. Try again.

And explain how 36,000 Imperial British wiped out a 150,000 man Italian Army with little effort. Or why they sucked so badly in Greece.

Why did the Soviets lose 500,000 men at Kiev? Why did their operations at Second Kharkov fail so horribly? You seem unable to understand that different situations can exist for units that do not reflect the whole experience.

Above the division level their leadership was largely shit.

And not attacking Greece would have helped, but it would not have made many more ships appear, the Libyan ports massively expand, and a good rail and road network appear in Libya.

The problem of completely inadequate Italian infrastructure in Libya would not have been fixed by not attacking Greece.

You seem completely incapable of understanding that the lack of a Balkan campaign means the resources used for could be transferred to North Africa. You don't need new ships if you can reassign existing ones.

[Minzerland II]

What else do I call Christians who separate from the True Church? :^]

The "True Church" has fractured a looong time ago, my friend.

What else do I call Christians who separate from the True Church? :^]

We were together for the first thousand years till the Pope decided he wanted to play Pontifus Maximus, and meddle in the jurisdictions of his brothers.

Not at all, the True Church lives in the Catholic Church, for the gates of hell have not prevailed against it. :^]

[Nea Byzantia]

What else do I call Christians who separate from the True Church? :^]

The "True Church" has fractured a looong time ago, my friend.

Orthodoxy IS the True Church.

[Confederate States of German America]

Make divorce illegal, instate Catholicism as the State Religion, defer to the Church on matters of faith and morals (on everything else too), and fix the obvious problems Catholicism is dealing with now (this should be first priority). Now pray to God and ask the for the prayers of Pope Innocent III. :^)

I got a better idea. Declare war on Australia. People coming back from a war always want to make babies. Plus we need more living room

Obligatory annex Mexico. Defeat the cartels, eliminating much of our drug problem and achieve living space.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I got a better idea. Declare war on Australia. People coming back from a war always want to make babies. Plus we need more living room

Obligatory annex Mexico. Defeat the cartels, eliminating much of our drug problem and achieve living space.

And give us decades of bloody Mexican nationalist insurrection. No bueno sir, no bueno at all.

[Confederate States of German America]

That's not an argument against it, however, and is a deviation from your original argument, which is that this only works because they are Indian.

More like people are more inclined to follow and believe in the cultural values they’re born into rather than those they’re not born into.

This still isn't an argument against it though, unless you are willing to claim Indian-Americans are genetically different for some reason.

[Confederate States of German America]

Obligatory annex Mexico. Defeat the cartels, eliminating much of our drug problem and achieve living space.

And give us decades of bloody Mexican nationalist insurrection. No bueno sir, no bueno at all.

See his original point, although I could argue on this on its own.

[Northern Davincia]

The "True Church" has fractured a looong time ago, my friend.

Orthodoxy IS the True Church.

You're quite wrong but we appreciate the effort.

[Joohan]

Orthodoxy IS the True Church.

You're quite wrong but we appreciate the effort.

* Stares in original catholic *

I would say something, but this belongs in the CDT ( funnily enough, this is the most secular i've ever been ).

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

More like people are more inclined to follow and believe in the cultural values they’re born into rather than those they’re not born into.

This still isn't an argument against it though, unless you are willing to claim Indian-Americans are genetically different for some reason.

Where would genetics come into this? There’s literally nothing genetic about being born into a cultural and being socially influenced into following the social norms of that culture other than cosmic circumstance of being born.

[Nea Byzantia]

Orthodoxy IS the True Church.

You're quite wrong but we appreciate the effort.

How am I wrong?

[Confederate States of German America]

Orthodoxy IS the True Church.

You're quite wrong but we appreciate the effort.

The One Holy and True Apostolic Church.....The Southern Baptist Convention.

[Nea Byzantia]

You're quite wrong but we appreciate the effort.

* Stares in original catholic *

I would say something, but this belongs in the CDT ( funnily enough, this is the most secular i've ever been ).

Just when I thought this conversation would turn into the Fourth Crusade...

[Saiwania]

I've wanted to ask something important to the right audience. Which is: Is antisemitism ever justifiable enough or is there enough logic for it to stand on its own merits? I believe that people who're against Arab and Jewish influence in the majority Gentile nations can do so, without being too obnoxious or malicious about it and without condoning the Holocaust.

People can perhaps be in favor of most of the entire world's Jewish population returning to Palestine, given that it is the closest area which exists to a Jewish homeland, even if the Arabs object.

The main reason I'm reluctant to fully embrace antisemitism is because I recognize most if not all Ashkenazi Jews as being White (if the European part of their ancestry is enough) and because it is probably the Roman empire's fault that Jews migrated towards Europe to begin with. The Temple shouldn't have been destroyed and the Jews didn't attack first, like might've been the case with the Arabs attacking Europe first just to spread Islam.

As it stands now, I'm more against the Roma people broadly speaking, because of the experiences relayed to me by this Hungarian I've been in communication for years. Zsolt from Budapest has always advised me on how bad it can be to have Roma as neighbors, given their lack of respect for private property and other problems too numerous to count. But I can understand now, why different national states in Europe take action against Roma on occasion.

[Confederate States of German America]

This still isn't an argument against it though, unless you are willing to claim Indian-Americans are genetically different for some reason.

Where would genetics come into this? There’s literally nothing genetic about being born into a cultural and being socially influenced into following the social norms of that culture other than cosmic circumstance of being born.

That's exactly my point, there's nothing to prevent such a cultural standard in America unlike what you suggested here:

Keyword: Indian. India has a prevalent culture of arranged marriages, America doesn’t. It’s not surprising at all that there are Indians that brought their culture of arranged marriages with them.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

And give us decades of bloody Mexican nationalist insurrection. No bueno sir, no bueno at all.

See his original point, although I could argue on this on its own.

I mean, tbh, what is there to argue? There would certainly be a long and drawn out Insurrection against our occupation if we were to hypothetically occupy and annex the whole country. Looking at Iraq and Afghanistan, American public opinion wouldn’t be behind it and it would get tiresome in general after a while.

[Nea Byzantia]

I've wanted to ask something important to the right audience. Which is: Is antisemitism ever justifiable enough or is there enough logic for it to stand on its own merits? I believe that people who're against Arab and Jewish influence in the majority Gentile nations can do so, without being too obnoxious or malicious about it and without condoning the Holocaust.

People can perhaps be in favor of most of the entire world's Jewish population returning to Palestine, given that it is the closest area which exists to a Jewish homeland, even if the Arabs object.

The main reason I'm reluctant to fully embrace antisemitism is because I recognize most if not all Ashkenazi Jews as being White (if the European part of their ancestry is enough) and because it is probably the Roman empire's fault that Jews migrated towards Europe to begin with. The Temple shouldn't have been destroyed and the Jews didn't attack first, like might've been the case with the Arabs attacking Europe first just to spread Islam.

As it stands now, I'm more against the Roma people broadly speaking, because of the experiences relayed to me by this Hungarian I've been in communication for years. Zsolt from Budapest has always advised me on how bad it can be to have Roma as neighbors, given their lack of respect for private property and other problems too numerous to count. But I can understand now, why different national states in Europe take action against Roma on occasion.

The Jews were in revolt against Rome and the Temple in Jerusalem was a major rallying point for the Jewish revolutionaries, had been since Herod built the thing; so razing it from the Roman POV made perfect sense.

Not the last time either. In 614 AD, while the Eastern Roman Empire was fighting the Persians, the Jews of Jerusalem rose up against the Romans and opened the city gates to the Persian host. The Jews of the city then helped the Persians sack churches including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and massacre Christians. They flattered the Persian Shah Khusrau II as a "second Cyrus".

When the war eventually ended some 14 years later as a Roman victory, Emperor Herakleios slaughtered the Jews of Jerusalem for their cooperation with the Persians. The Muslims seized Jerusalem some 10 - 11years later.

[Confederate States of German America]

See his original point, although I could argue on this on its own.

I mean, tbh, what is there to argue? There would certainly be a long and drawn out Insurrection against our occupation if we were to hypothetically occupy and annex the whole country. Looking at Iraq and Afghanistan, American public opinion wouldn’t be behind it and it would get tiresome in general after a while.

His entire point was of a different America, one directly seeking Lebensraum; this necessarily implies an America that has underwent some massive changes, to say the least.

[Northern Davincia]

You're quite wrong but we appreciate the effort.

The One Holy and True Apostolic Church.....The Southern Baptist Convention.

When I was a Baptist, my pastor looked exactly like John Hammond. He was great.

[Confederate States of German America]

I've wanted to ask something important to the right audience. Which is: Is antisemitism ever justifiable enough or is there enough logic for it to stand on its own merits?

What do you mean? Like, as Joohan said earlier when talking about someone else, on ethnic grounds or on political/economic ones? Yes, the two can be separated.

[Novus America]

Again I agree the Italians made adequate German auxiliaries under German command in several cases.

Any basic reading of the Italian operations in North Africa would disprove this. They were not German auxiliaries, they were the main Axis force. Rommel's abrasive nature, such as denying them logistics and abandoning them as needed, to name two examples, gravely hindered them.

None of the cases you cited had them fighting on their own. All those cases had them under German command fighting as German auxiliaries.

The Italian 8th Army had its own sector under an Italian commander. Try again.

And explain how 36,000 Imperial British wiped out a 150,000 man Italian Army with little effort. Or why they sucked so badly in Greece.

Why did the Soviets lose 500,000 men at Kiev? Why did their operations at Second Kharkov fail so horribly? You seem unable to understand that different situations can exist for units that do not reflect the whole experience.

Above the division level their leadership was largely shit.

And not attacking Greece would have helped, but it would not have made many more ships appear, the Libyan ports massively expand, and a good rail and road network appear in Libya.

The problem of completely inadequate Italian infrastructure in Libya would not have been fixed by not attacking Greece.

You seem completely incapable of understanding that the lack of a Balkan campaign means the resources used for could be transferred to North Africa. You don't need new ships if you can reassign existing ones.

You seem completely incapable of understanding the infrastructure in North Africa was not up to the task.
Obviously no Italian operations in the Balkans would have freed up some additional ships.
But not enough.

And what good are ships if you do not have ports to land them in? Roads and rails to get the supplies to the troops in the field? The forces fighting in North Africa were not directly supplied by ships. The ships had to land in the (completely inadequate) Libyan ports, and the supplies moved by road and rail to the front lines.

The Soviet Army had serious command issues as well.
Especially at the beginning. Thanks to Stalin’s purges the Soviet command structure and higher level officers were often very poor, but they had some much better commanders latter on.
A lot of the Soviet officers, especially early on were shit.

In North Africa the forces were led by Germans.
And in the Soviet operations they were under the German Command via Army group B and certainly a supporting force for that group. Also they did fight well in a few battles but they were still defeated and the ARMIR completely destroyed by February 1943.
In the cases you cited they still answered to German officers, not the (largely useless) Italian General staff.

[Nea Byzantia]

I've wanted to ask something important to the right audience. Which is: Is antisemitism ever justifiable enough or is there enough logic for it to stand on its own merits? I believe that people who're against Arab and Jewish influence in the majority Gentile nations can do so, without being too obnoxious or malicious about it and without condoning the Holocaust.

People can perhaps be in favor of most of the entire world's Jewish population returning to Palestine, given that it is the closest area which exists to a Jewish homeland, even if the Arabs object.

The main reason I'm reluctant to fully embrace antisemitism is because I recognize most if not all Ashkenazi Jews as being White (if the European part of their ancestry is enough) and because it is probably the Roman empire's fault that Jews migrated towards Europe to begin with. The Temple shouldn't have been destroyed and the Jews didn't attack first, like might've been the case with the Arabs attacking Europe first just to spread Islam.

As it stands now, I'm more against the Roma people broadly speaking, because of the experiences relayed to me by this Hungarian I've been in communication for years. Zsolt from Budapest has always advised me on how bad it can be to have Roma as neighbors, given their lack of respect for private property and other problems too numerous to count. But I can understand now, why different national states in Europe take action against Roma on occasion.

The Jews were in revolt against Rome and the Temple in Jerusalem was a major rallying point for the Jewish revolutionaries, had been since Herod built the thing; so razing it from the Roman POV made perfect sense.

Not the last time either. In 614 AD, while the Eastern Roman Empire was fighting the Persians, the Jews of Jerusalem rose up against the Romans and opened the city gates to the Persian host. The Jews of the city then helped the Persians sack churches including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and massacre Christians. They flattered the Persian Shah Khusrau II as a "second Cyrus".

When the war eventually ended some 14 years later as a Roman victory, Emperor Herakleios slaughtered the Jews of Jerusalem for their cooperation with the Persians. The Muslims seized Jerusalem some 10 - 11years later.

All that to say that the hostilities between the Romans and the Jews were provoked by Zionist revolutionaries, who always put their countrymen in severe danger with their rash actions.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Where would genetics come into this? There’s literally nothing genetic about being born into a cultural and being socially influenced into following the social norms of that culture other than cosmic circumstance of being born.

That's exactly my point, there's nothing to prevent such a cultural standard in America unlike what you suggested here:

Keyword: Indian. India has a prevalent culture of arranged marriages, America doesn’t. It’s not surprising at all that there are Indians that brought their culture of arranged marriages with them.

Well, my point is that if Indian-Americans who believe in arranged marriages have kids then they’re more likely to pass on and impose that particular cultural norm onto those kids just like Christian Americans are more likely to pass on and impose their Christian norms onto their kids. So arranged marriages, shared by certain particular cultures and their experiences with it can’t be used as representative of how the rest of the nation of would feel if those specific cultural norms were imposed on the rest of the nation.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I've wanted to ask something important to the right audience. Which is: Is antisemitism ever justifiable enough or is there enough logic for it to stand on its own merits?

No.

[Nea Byzantia]

You're quite wrong but we appreciate the effort.

The One Holy and True Apostolic Church.....The Southern Baptist Convention.

I love how you refrained from using the C word...the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

Catholic deriving from the Greek "Katholiko" meaning "Universal"... Essentially both the Orthodox and the Papists (oops, I mean Roman Catholics) seek to claim the mantle of " Catholic "