Are all Nazis racists?

[Diahon]

it's truer to say that the brits did the best they can as time went on, only that "the best they can" was lacking, at times even by their own standards

[Rojava Free State]

it's truer to say that the brits did the best they can as time went on, only that "the best they can" was lacking, at times even by their own standards

When you try your best but you don't succeed.

[Dogmeat]

it's truer to say that the brits did the best they can as time went on, only that "the best they can" was lacking, at times even by their own standards

I mean, that's just not true.

In WWII, when the Japanese seized Burma and cut off Bengal's rice supply, they let between 1.5-3 Million Indians starve to death because they couldn't be bothered to work out the logistics to feed them.

Not that they didn't have the food. They did. They just didn't want to reallocate the ships to move it.

[Kannap]

it's truer to say that the brits did the best they can as time went on, only that "the best they can" was lacking, at times even by their own standards

When you try your best but you don't succeed.

When you get what you want but not what the African colonies need.

[Rojava Free State]

When you try your best but you don't succeed.

When you get what you want but not what the African colonies need.

Ireland: *famine*

England: no no no no nobody feed them. Nobody send anything, let's just let them die so we can move more settlers in.

[West Leas Oros 2]

When you get what you want but not what the African colonies need.

Ireland: *famine*

England: no no no no nobody feed them. Nobody send anything, let's just let them die so we can move more settlers in.

That’s not a very modest proposal of them.

[Rojava Free State]

Ireland: *famine*

England: no no no no nobody feed them. Nobody send anything, let's just let them die so we can move more settlers in.

That’s not a very modest proposal of them.

Not very cash money of you Ben D'israeli.

[SangMar]

When you get what you want but not what the African colonies need.

Ireland: *famine*

EnglandUK: no no no no nobody feed them. Nobody send anything, let's just let them die so we can move more settlers in.

Much better. Scotland and Wales aren’t some sad little oppressed colonies. Especially in the former’s case - much of the trouble in NI is caused by Scottish-descended colonists, for example.

Also, I believe (to whoever brought up the Rwandan Genocide) that Rwanda was mainly administered by France. Not Britain.

EDIT: No to both actually, Belgium.
Not that my two points make any of this better.

[Rojava Free State]

Ireland: *famine*

EnglandUK: no no no no nobody feed them. Nobody send anything, let's just let them die so we can move more settlers in.

Much better. Scotland and Wales aren’t some sad little oppressed colonies. Especially in the former’s case - much of the trouble in NI is caused by Scottish-descended colonists, for example.

Also, I believe (to whoever brought up the Rwandan Genocide) that Rwanda was mainly administered by France. Not Britain.

EDIT: No to both actually, Belgium.
Not that my two points make any of this better.

Yeah the "protestants" in NI are really ulster scots and their anti catholic sentiment is really just anti Irish in general.

[SangMar]

Much better. Scotland and Wales aren’t some sad little oppressed colonies. Especially in the former’s case - much of the trouble in NI is caused by Scottish-descended colonists, for example.

Also, I believe (to whoever brought up the Rwandan Genocide) that Rwanda was mainly administered by France. Not Britain.

EDIT: No to both actually, Belgium.
Not that my two points make any of this better.

Yeah the "protestants" in NI are really ulster scots and their anti catholic sentiment is really just anti Irish in general.

The really sad part is, Bloody Sunday could easily happen again. Having met a few paras in my time, I can tell you that that particular regiment of the army prides itself on being aggressive and always up for a fight. It wouldn’t even have to be in Ireland, they’d quite happily turn London into a war zone if the they wound up being sent there for some reason. (E.G - if the army had been put onto the streets during this epidemic)

[Heloin]

Ireland: *famine*

EnglandUK: no no no no nobody feed them. Nobody send anything, let's just let them die so we can move more settlers in.

Much better. Scotland and Wales aren’t some sad little oppressed colonies. Especially in the former’s case - much of the trouble in NI is caused by Scottish-descended colonists, for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Potato_Famine
And general destruction of Welsh, Scots, and Gaelic culture and language by the English.

[SangMar]

Much better. Scotland and Wales aren’t some sad little oppressed colonies. Especially in the former’s case - much of the trouble in NI is caused by Scottish-descended colonists, for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Potato_Famine
And general destruction of Welsh, Scots, and Gaelic culture and language by the English.

Still, this doesn’t mean that it was England alone who oppressed Ireland - in fact, during the Troubles, many of the worst issues with sectarianism came from Scottish military units (or rather, units that were based in and mainly recruited from Scotland - such as the Black Watch). Yet it doesn’t excuse what the English did. I’m also aware of the Highland Clearances too. However, I wasn’t aware of there being a famine in the Highlands. Thanks for that - I’ll read up on that one.

Furthermore, as I’m sure you’re aware - it wasn’t entirely Scots vs English, while there was certainly tension there - there was also lots of tension and violence between the Lowlands Scots (who did not speak Gaelic - and were arguably more Germanic in origin) and the Highlanders (who were of Irish origin, and lived in the eponymous territory). In many areas there was just as much hatred between Highlanders and those from the Lowlands as between the Scots and English as a whole.

Tl;dr - England definitely did many bad things, but it’s not as simple as Scots vs English. Often it was a case of Highlanders vs Lowlands Scots too.

[Ankenland]

That’s odd. I remember proving to you, that Africa had written language.

You quoted one explorer who thought this more than a hundred years ago, and I directed you to the definitions of writing and pre-writing, and it fit with the latter, since it was not a complete, functional or used system. I thought it would be mean to keep pressing this issue, since you invested so much posting into a lost cause.

Ankenland is the same guy who thinks the Greeks today are Turkish hybrids because they're brown colored and ancient Greek pictures show some people with blonde hair. #1 there is still plenty of blonde greeks and #2 if you think one painting proves ancient greeks were all blonde, you must also think that the average anime character proves that all Japanese teenage boys are big and ripped and dress like an edgy train conductor.

As opposed to you, who wants to push the idea that... what? Turks are Greek hybrids, and the three hundred year occupation of Greece by Turkey had no effect on their genetics?

Next, argue that the conquest of Constantinople didn't change the ethnicity of the people there, either - or argue why one case should be different from the other. Either way, I look forward to reading this.

[Ankenland]

Britain: *throws Afrikaaners in a concentration camp*

Also Britain: LoOk aT aLl ThE gOoD tHiNgS wE dO.

Well, sure - looking at that place and deciding that Dutch settlers were the real threat was, ahem. a counting error, and infighting between European powers was the reason that colonialism failed.

It was a large project, and mistakes were made.

Still, if you are really going this route - please explain to me why it would have been better for the Europeans (and Arabs) to leave everyone in Africa illiterate, in mud huts, etc. instead of bringing them organized religion, roads, cars, medicine, information technology, gunpowder, etc. Their intentions were paternalistic, not moustache-twirling villainry, and the result was modernity.

If you would like to argue that it would have been more humane to leave them in the Stone Age, please do that. I don't even necessarily think that you're wrong - but it would be a very radical argument. Your options here are to either concede that the good (paternalistic, Christian) intentions of colonialism had good results, OR to go full Ted Kaczynski, and argue that African-Americans with jobs and cars would have been better off spear-hunting, and that Lincoln should have sent them back on boats for their own good.

I'm interested in seeing which way you choose.

[Heloin]

Britain: *throws Afrikaaners in a concentration camp*

Also Britain: LoOk aT aLl ThE gOoD tHiNgS wE dO.

Well, sure - looking at that place and deciding that Dutch settlers were the real threat was, ahem. a counting error, and infighting between European powers was the reason that colonialism failed.

It was a large project, and mistakes were made.

Still, if you are really going this route - please explain to me why it would have been better for the Europeans (and Arabs) to leave everyone in Africa illiterate, in mud huts, etc. instead of bringing them organized religion, roads, cars, medicine, information technology, gunpowder, etc. Their intentions were paternalistic, not moustache-twirling villainry, and the result was modernity.

If you would like to argue that it would have been more humane to leave them in the Stone Age, please do that. I don't even necessarily think that you're wrong - but it would be a very radical argument. Your options here are to either concede that the good (paternalistic, Christian) intentions of colonialism had good results, OR to go full Ted Kaczynski, and argue that African-Americans with jobs and cars would have been better off spear-hunting, and that Lincoln should have sent them back on boats for their own good.

I'm interested in seeing which way you choose.

Take up the White Man's burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

[Diahon]

Britain: *throws Afrikaaners in a concentration camp*

Also Britain: LoOk aT aLl ThE gOoD tHiNgS wE dO.

Well, sure - looking at that place and deciding that Dutch settlers were the real threat was, ahem. a counting error, and infighting between European powers was the reason that colonialism failed.

It was a large project, and mistakes were made.

Still, if you are really going this route - please explain to me why it would have been better for the Europeans (and Arabs) to leave everyone in Africa illiterate, in mud huts, etc. instead of bringing them organized religion, roads, cars, medicine, information technology, gunpowder, etc. Their intentions were paternalistic, not moustache-twirling villainry, and the result was modernity.

If you would like to argue that it would have been more humane to leave them in the Stone Age, please do that. I don't even necessarily think that you're wrong - but it would be a very radical argument. Your options here are to either concede that the good (paternalistic, Christian) intentions of colonialism had good results, OR to go full Ted Kaczynski, and argue that African-Americans with jobs and cars would have been better off spear-hunting, and that Lincoln should have sent them back on boats for their own good.

I'm interested in seeing which way you choose.

fair so far as it goes, only chattel slavery was once a really big thing -- that seems more moustache-twirling villainy than anything else

[Aya Democratic Republic]

Nazism, or National Socialism if you prefer, is of course an ideology with many beliefs and tenets. Chief among them however is the idea of the superiority of the so called Aryan race, specifically the Nordic subrace; that it is their destiny to rule over others. However we know many people pick and choose which parts of an ideology to follow sometimes to bizarre levels. So that leaves the question: Is it possible for someone to believe in all the other tenets of Nazism but not the superiority of the Aryan race and still remain a Nazi? Or is that particular belief so central to Nazism that in order to be genuine Nazi you must believe in it? In other words, are all Nazis racists?

I believe in order to be a genuine Nazi you most adhere to the idea of so called Aryan superiority and therefore, yes, all Nazis are racist. What say you, NSG?

Yes Because Nazism Is Defined As The Views Of Adolf Hitler So Yes And Nazism Is Also Defined As Extreme Nationalism Which Is Basically Racism (NOTE: I Am Not Saying Nationalism = Racism I’m Saying Being A Extreme Nationalist Is Being Racist)

[Nazeroth]

Nazism, or National Socialism if you prefer, is of course an ideology with many beliefs and tenets. Chief among them however is the idea of the superiority of the so called Aryan race, specifically the Nordic subrace; that it is their destiny to rule over others. However we know many people pick and choose which parts of an ideology to follow sometimes to bizarre levels. So that leaves the question: Is it possible for someone to believe in all the other tenets of Nazism but not the superiority of the Aryan race and still remain a Nazi? Or is that particular belief so central to Nazism that in order to be genuine Nazi you must believe in it? In other words, are all Nazis racists?

I believe in order to be a genuine Nazi you most adhere to the idea of so called Aryan superiority and therefore, yes, all Nazis are racist. What say you, NSG?

Yes Because Nazism Is Defined As The Views Of Adolf Hitler So Yes And Nazism Is Also Defined As Extreme Nationalism Which Is Basically Racism (NOTE: I Am Not Saying Nationalism = Racism I’m Saying Being A Extreme Nationalist Is Being Racist)

The soviet union was incredibly diverse while also extremley nationalist.

[Nazeroth]

Also is it ironic that China is probably the closest thing to the third reich that exists today.

[Rojava Free State]

Britain: *throws Afrikaaners in a concentration camp*

Also Britain: LoOk aT aLl ThE gOoD tHiNgS wE dO.

Well, sure - looking at that place and deciding that Dutch settlers were the real threat was, ahem. a counting error, and infighting between European powers was the reason that colonialism failed.

It was a large project, and mistakes were made.

Still, if you are really going this route - please explain to me why it would have been better for the Europeans (and Arabs) to leave everyone in Africa illiterate, in mud huts, etc. instead of bringing them organized religion, roads, cars, medicine, information technology, gunpowder, etc. Their intentions were paternalistic, not moustache-twirling villainry, and the result was modernity.

If you would like to argue that it would have been more humane to leave them in the Stone Age, please do that. I don't even necessarily think that you're wrong - but it would be a very radical argument. Your options here are to either concede that the good (paternalistic, Christian) intentions of colonialism had good results, OR to go full Ted Kaczynski, and argue that African-Americans with jobs and cars would have been better off spear-hunting, and that Lincoln should have sent them back on boats for their own good.

I'm interested in seeing which way you choose.

You know what's funny? Unde European rule in South Africa, black people still had to live in huts and only white people could really have a modern state of existence. Please tell me some more about how colonialism was okay cause "they built roads." Like they killed your family and burned your village down BUT THANK GOD, THEY BUILT A ROAD.

[Rojava Free State]

That’s odd. I remember proving to you, that Africa had written language.

You quoted one explorer who thought this more than a hundred years ago, and I directed you to the definitions of writing and pre-writing, and it fit with the latter, since it was not a complete, functional or used system. I thought it would be mean to keep pressing this issue, since you invested so much posting into a lost cause.

Ankenland is the same guy who thinks the Greeks today are Turkish hybrids because they're brown colored and ancient Greek pictures show some people with blonde hair. #1 there is still plenty of blonde greeks and #2 if you think one painting proves ancient greeks were all blonde, you must also think that the average anime character proves that all Japanese teenage boys are big and ripped and dress like an edgy train conductor.

As opposed to you, who wants to push the idea that... what? Turks are Greek hybrids, and the three hundred year occupation of Greece by Turkey had no effect on their genetics?
Next, argue that the conquest of Constantinople didn't change the ethnicity of the people there, either - or argue why one case should be different from the other. Either way, I look forward to reading this.

Funny how I posted an actual study on Greek genetics that proved they're almost entirely of native origin, and all you posted was...what your clown ass racial theories from 1850?

Literally no one except you and the trailer trash on stormfront unironically thinks Greeks are some turkic mongrels. You believe a painting over actual genetic studies. Tells me all I need to know about your expertise in anthropology, your non existent expertise that is.

[Albrenia]

Also is it ironic that China is probably the closest thing to the third reich that exists today.

They do love to mix the absolute worst aspects of numerous ideologies into one horrible stew of tyranny.

[Atheris]

Yes Because Nazism Is Defined As The Views Of Adolf Hitler So Yes And Nazism Is Also Defined As Extreme Nationalism Which Is Basically Racism (NOTE: I Am Not Saying Nationalism = Racism I’m Saying Being A Extreme Nationalist Is Being Racist)

The soviet union was incredibly diverse while also extremley nationalist.

It was, at least under Stalin (ironically), a Russian nationalist state. Stalin was trying to recreate the borders of the Russian Empire, for God's sake.

[The Alma Mater]

Britain: *throws Afrikaaners in a concentration camp*

Also Britain: LoOk aT aLl ThE gOoD tHiNgS wE dO.

Well, sure - looking at that place and deciding that Dutch settlers were the real threat was, ahem. a counting error, and infighting between European powers was the reason that colonialism failed.

It was a large project, and mistakes were made.

Still, if you are really going this route - please explain to me why it would have been better for the Europeans (and Arabs) to leave everyone in Africa illiterate, in mud huts, etc. instead of bringing them organized religion, roads, cars, medicine, information technology, gunpowder, etc. Their intentions were paternalistic, not moustache-twirling villainry, and the result was modernity.

If you would like to argue that it would have been more humane to leave them in the Stone Age, please do that. I don't even necessarily think that you're wrong - but it would be a very radical argument. Your options here are to either concede that the good (paternalistic, Christian) intentions of colonialism had good results, OR to go full Ted Kaczynski, and argue that African-Americans with jobs and cars would have been better off spear-hunting, and that Lincoln should have sent them back on boats for their own good.

I'm interested in seeing which way you choose.

An even nicer casestudy is Suriname. When the Dutch left, what remained was fully functional nationwide plumbing, irrigation and waterpurification systems. Which the locals did not bother to maintain, so is now completely defunct. In addition they decided to re-elect a previously convicted massmurdering drugdealer as their president who treats the population worse than the colonisers ever did.
Hard choice.

[Nazeroth]

The soviet union was incredibly diverse while also extremley nationalist.

It was, at least under Stalin (ironically), a Russian nationalist state. Stalin was trying to recreate the borders of the Russian Empire, for God's sake.

Right

Point is nationalism has no political leaning