Jump to content
Cobber

Sweden, Germany and the death of the west

Recommended Posts

White nationalists/ultranationalists typically don't have the same economic agenda, Nazis do. Other than that, they are all the same in their desire for "cultural purity." But this is verbatim, I don't think you really care what I call you. 

 

I'm pretty sure there isn't any historical literature on counting the number of deaths attributed to Islam. But the three most catastrophic human-related events were WWII, Taiping Revolution, and WWI, all of them related to nationalism. To some degree, you can say that religion is part of national identity (though the concept of the nation state for Islam is arguably a post-WWII phenomenon), but to simply say that a single religion has killed more people than those events is silly. Combined, those three events have killed 170 million, excluding people killed through starvation due to those events. Are you seriously implying that Islam has killed more than 170 million people? Islam would have needed to kill an additional 50 million more people than the combined populations of the Roman and Han empires at their peak. Nationalism has killed more people than Islam. Period. 

 

And yet, China has its influences from the outside. Buddhism wasn't originally from China, and yet China still stands hundreds of years later. China was one of the first nations to accept Islam into its borders during the Tang dynasty, and yet still survives. You guys are delusional when you say some Muslims will destroy the west and its culture. 

 

Does multiculturalism not work because it's multiculturalism, or is it because nationalistic people don't want it to? You are suggesting that nationalism is a natural urge, despite the concept of a nation state is a social construct only recently conceived within the last 400 years. 

 

Cultural purity (not how I'd describe it but whatever) does not equal racial purity so your attempts fail right there.

 

The Taiping Rebellion was a religious conflict, well done. In addition you're laughably ignorant with those sort of statements when Islam in India alone at the lowest estimate killed 80 million people (400 at highest). Then there is the horror they inflicted on Africa and all the death they inflicted on any Christians they could get control over. This is not even including other religions such as Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and the Pagan groups. 

 

Buddhism isn't Islam to start with. Secondly China got control over a heavy Muslim land and Muslims have been sidelined and oppressed ever since. China does not treat them like your loony multiculturalism would... they treat them far worse than anything said here and the fact you are arguing as if they are better exposes you heavily (though you're so exposed that it doesn't really matter I suppose). Beyond that one of the first? What?

 

Both concepts spoken of here have been around before they came into full existance. Nationalism has a history of success at doing what its supposed to do, unite people. Multiculturalism has a history of failure. That is the difference and nationalist nations killing people is quite irrelevant to the success of the concept.

Edited by Rozalia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cultural purity (not how I'd describe it but whatever) does not equal racial purity so your attempts fail right there.

 

The Taiping Rebellion was a religious conflict, well done. In addition you're laughably ignorant with those sort of statements when Islam in India alone at the lowest estimate killed 80 million people (400 at highest). Then there is the horror they inflicted on Africa and all the death they inflicted on any Christians they could get control over. This is not even including other religions such as Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and the Pagan groups. 

 

Buddhism isn't Islam to start with. Secondly China got control over a heavy Muslim land and Muslims have been sidelined and oppressed ever since. China does not treat them like your loony multiculturalism would... they treat them far worse than anything said here and the fact you are arguing as if they are better exposes you heavily (though you're so exposed that it doesn't really matter I suppose). Beyond that one of the first? What?

 

Both concepts spoken of here have been around before they came into full existance. Nationalism has a history of success at doing what its supposed to do, unite people. Multiculturalism has a history of failure. That is the difference and nationalist nations killing people is quite irrelevant to the success of the concept.

 

White supremacists use the term "cultural purity" when talking about the consequences of mixing with other races. 

 

Most historians would classify the Taiping Rebellion as a massive anti-Western/Chinese nationalism movement. While its origins were from an obscure religious sect, it grew through China's dissatisfaction of western influence in the government. There is religious conflict, and then there is a nationalistic conflict cloaked in religion. Almost all historians agree the Taiping Rebellion was the latter. Oh really? Islam has killed more than 80 million people in India? Where are you getting your numbers from?

 

Oppressed?? On the contrary. Communist China is famous for being an atheist country that does actively suppress religions. Religious sects such as the Fa Lun Da Fa cult have undergone active targeting by the communist government. But Islam is not, primarily since its a huge majority religion, especially in the north western regions of China. To be fair though, the government did try. Even before communist China, Islam was more or less ignored during the average days of the dynasties. I think it was a couple years ago that China had avoided depicting pigs on their network TVs during the year of the pig to avoid offending their Muslim viewers. 

 

So what you are saying is Hitler was successful? That he united people? That you approve of the nationalistic fervor that occurred during the 1930s, and it solved problems? Nationalistic nations killing each other was the whole reason why the EU/NATO was conceived in the first place. By the very nature of nationalism, there is a militarism component which has destroyed millions of lives within the last century alone. The only way Hitler was going to unite people was by killing or enslaving everyone else. 

 

 

 

It seems you have defeated your own argument, or at least on the way to do it. 

Estimates put the number deaths related to Islam at over 200 million, a large amount is because of the slave trade in Africa and the invasions into India which killed enormous numbers of people. 

 

Where the [email protected]#$ is everyone getting their estimates? If I honestly can't find this on the first two pages of google, I'm calling bullshit. 

 

Also, you still didn't answer my question. ARE YOU A 14-YEAR-OLD KID FROM THE MOST UNDERFUNDED PART OF KANSAS?! ARE YOU FROM EUROPE?! IS ENGLISH YOUR SECOND LANGUAGE OR YOUR FIRST HALF-LANGUAGE?! CAN YOU READ ENGLISH?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muhammed was a pedophile and a violent warlord.

 

Anybody who supports bringing followers of him in needs their brain scrubbed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White supremacists use the term "cultural purity" when talking about the consequences of mixing with other races. 

 

Most historians would classify the Taiping Rebellion as a massive anti-Western/Chinese nationalism movement. While its origins were from an obscure religious sect, it grew through China's dissatisfaction of western influence in the government. There is religious conflict, and then there is a nationalistic conflict cloaked in religion. Almost all historians agree the Taiping Rebellion was the latter. Oh really? Islam has killed more than 80 million people in India? Where are you getting your numbers from?

 

Oppressed?? On the contrary. Communist China is famous for being an atheist country that does actively suppress religions. Religious sects such as the Fa Lun Da Fa cult have undergone active targeting by the communist government. But Islam is not, primarily since its a huge majority religion, especially in the north western regions of China. To be fair though, the government did try. Even before communist China, Islam was more or less ignored during the average days of the dynasties. I think it was a couple years ago that China had avoided depicting pigs on their network TVs during the year of the pig to avoid offending their Muslim viewers. 

 

So what you are saying is Hitler was successful? That he united people? That you approve of the nationalistic fervor that occurred during the 1930s, and it solved problems? Nationalistic nations killing each other was the whole reason why the EU/NATO was conceived in the first place. By the very nature of nationalism, there is a militarism component which has destroyed millions of lives within the last century alone. The only way Hitler was going to unite people was by killing or enslaving everyone else. 

 

They are about racial purity as any will happily tell you. I clearly am not so refrain from stating I am. 

 

Most historians would tell you that you just made all that up. The western incursions into China created a good setting for the rebellion (though the Chinese government's general corruption and incompetence is ultimately what tips it), but Jesus's Chinese brother was not anti-western or he would not have built his faith on a western one (he was heavily against the Chinese faiths, Confucianism in particular), had western advisers, and tried to get the western states on his side before they confirmed their support for China. Its certainly true that he hated the Manchu culture and used that to get more supporters but to talk of all this as nationalism is dishonest.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_Muslim_Population_in_Medieval_India

 

I'm not going to bother posting the 400 million as its obviously overblown. 

 

Yes, China treats minorities so nicely and doesn't persecute them. The Uyghurs are seen as a fifth column and if they even sneeze towards China they get their heads cracked. You're a joke. In your grasping at straws to prove your faulty argument you've hit Ibrahim levels of delusion. 

 

He did yes. Germanic nationalism at the time expanded beyond Germany and he was able to unite it. His later killings of say the Jews, gays, and so forth have zero to do with Nationalism. It has to do with his strand of Fascism which was Nazism. 

And here we go again. Nationalists in the west these days are by the large anti-war and oppose the globalist warmongers (which you are part of). Those Muslims who have had their lives pounded into misery for decades? Down to your political ideology. Those people in the east who have virtually been made slaves to work for greedy companies? Down to your ideology. Keep repeating irrelevant nonsense regarding Hitler as we all know that when it comes to the actual present you have nothing to say. Nationalism only gains a militarism component as you put it when military action is required to reclaim land that belongs to the nation. As in the west our countries are still very much intact when it comes to land that isn't really a concern and Nationalists just want certain changes in their country and then to stay well away from the military incursions your lot want to do all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also, you still didn't answer my question. ARE YOU A 14-YEAR-OLD KID FROM THE MOST UNDERFUNDED PART OF KANSAS?! ARE YOU FROM EUROPE?! IS ENGLISH YOUR SECOND LANGUAGE OR YOUR FIRST HALF-LANGUAGE?! CAN YOU READ ENGLISH?!

They're awfully odd questions, have you being taking your medication? 

 

 

 

Where the [email protected]#$ is everyone getting their estimates? If I honestly can't find this on the first two pages of google, I'm calling bullshit. 

 I didn't know people could be so unintelligent. https://www.google.ie/?gws_rd=cr&ei=E4b3U_mqDK2v7AbLhoGIDA#q=Islam+killed+millions+in+India&start=0

 

Lots of links giving various estimates.

Edited by Lightning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are about racial purity as any will happily tell you. I clearly am not so refrain from stating I am. 

 

Most historians would tell you that you just made all that up. The western incursions into China created a good setting for the rebellion (though the Chinese government's general corruption and incompetence is ultimately what tips it), but Jesus's Chinese brother was not anti-western or he would not have built his faith on a western one (he was heavily against the Chinese faiths, Confucianism in particular), had western advisers, and tried to get the western states on his side before they confirmed their support for China. Its certainly true that he hated the Manchu culture and used that to get more supporters but to talk of all this as nationalism is dishonest.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_Muslim_Population_in_Medieval_India

 

I'm not going to bother posting the 400 million as its obviously overblown. 

 

Yes, China treats minorities so nicely and doesn't persecute them. The Uyghurs are seen as a fifth column and if they even sneeze towards China they get their heads cracked. You're a joke. In your grasping at straws to prove your faulty argument you've hit Ibrahim levels of delusion. 

 

He did yes. Germanic nationalism at the time expanded beyond Germany and he was able to unite it. His later killings of say the Jews, gays, and so forth have zero to do with Nationalism. It has to do with his strand of Fascism which was Nazism. 

And here we go again. Nationalists in the west these days are by the large anti-war and oppose the globalist warmongers (which you are part of). Those Muslims who have had their lives pounded into misery for decades? Down to your political ideology. Those people in the east who have virtually been made slaves to work for greedy companies? Down to your ideology. Keep repeating irrelevant nonsense regarding Hitler as we all know that when it comes to the actual present you have nothing to say. Nationalism only gains a militarism component as you put it when military action is required to reclaim land that belongs to the nation. As in the west our countries are still very much intact when it comes to land that isn't really a concern and Nationalists just want certain changes in their country and then to stay well away from the military incursions your lot want to do all the time.

 

Vincent Yu-Chung Shih's "Interpretations of the Taiping Tien-Kuo by Noncommunist Chinese Writers," published in The Far Eastern Quarterly (V. 10, No. 3 1951) discusses how many Chinese writers viewed the Taiping rebellion as a nationalistic uprising and the assertion of a cultural identity independent from a perceived puppet government. James Townsend's "Chinese Nationalism" published in The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs (No. 27, 1992) p112 sums up the Taiping Revolution and its relation to nationalism by the statement "Popular sentiment supporting these non-culturalist doctrines and movements in popular culture was evident in patriotic themes, emphasizing national history and heroes." Again, nobody denies how the Taiping revolution started out as a radical religious sect. But nobody denies that the movement gained immense popularity through nationalism.
 
And here I thought you were referring to recent events in the last two centuries. If that were the case, we should also destroy the Mongolians or the Catholic Christian Spaniards who colonized the new world. Or the Thirty Years War, or the Hunnic invasions. Also, I'm pretty sure that nationalism has killed more people over a 500 year period. Nationalism has been (historically debatable) around for a little over 400 years. You want to count up the dead that occurred through war (excluding war-related famines) and say that's not close to 80 million? The two world wars combined is 80 million, and that's within 40 years of each other. 
 
Point is, Islam is part of China's culture, and China isn't in shambles (though I suppose one could argue that). 
 
Oh please, don't get me started. Hitler unified jack crap. For the entirety of the war, he had to keep military presence in every place he occupied. Are you serious right now? His killings of Jews had nothing to do with nationalism?! That's pretty much the only reason why he did it! Hitler believed in a twisted pseudoscience called eugenics, believing that there is a superior race, and its Germans. All those other people are infections on the body politic that he thought he needed to excise. He was shaping an ideal body politic. That's nationalism 101. 
 
And I'm not saying war is unique to nationalism. War has been a political strategy used by even the most self-proclaimed pacifists. I'm just saying that ultranationalism as an ideology has certainly killed more people.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Vincent Yu-Chung Shih's "Interpretations of the Taiping Tien-Kuo by Noncommunist Chinese Writers," published in The Far Eastern Quarterly (V. 10, No. 3 1951) discusses how many Chinese writers viewed the Taiping rebellion as a nationalistic uprising and the assertion of a cultural identity independent from a perceived puppet government. James Townsend's "Chinese Nationalism" published in The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs (No. 27, 1992) p112 sums up the Taiping Revolution and its relation to nationalism by the statement "Popular sentiment supporting these non-culturalist doctrines and movements in popular culture was evident in patriotic themes, emphasizing national history and heroes." Again, nobody denies how the Taiping revolution started out as a radical religious sect. But nobody denies that the movement gained immense popularity through nationalism.
 
And here I thought you were referring to recent events in the last two centuries. If that were the case, we should also destroy the Mongolians or the Catholic Christian Spaniards who colonized the new world. Or the Thirty Years War, or the Hunnic invasions. Also, I'm pretty sure that nationalism has killed more people over a 500 year period. Nationalism has been (historically debatable) around for a little over 400 years. You want to count up the dead that occurred through war (excluding war-related famines) and say that's not close to 80 million? The two world wars combined is 80 million, and that's within 40 years of each other. 
 
Point is, Islam is part of China's culture, and China isn't in shambles (though I suppose one could argue that). 
 
Oh please, don't get me started. Hitler unified jack crap. For the entirety of the war, he had to keep military presence in every place he occupied. Are you serious right now? His killings of Jews had nothing to do with nationalism?! That's pretty much the only reason why he did it! Hitler believed in a twisted pseudoscience called eugenics, believing that there is a superior race, and its Germans. All those other people are infections on the body politic that he thought he needed to excise. He was shaping an ideal body politic. That's nationalism 101. 
 
And I'm not saying war is unique to nationalism. War has been a political strategy used by even the most self-proclaimed pacifists. I'm just saying that ultranationalism as an ideology has certainly killed more people.  

 

Chinese writers/historians tow the line of the government which glorifies Taiping as proto-Communists to lend credibility and legitimacy to themselves. Nothing strange for China as such a thing occurred with the Three Kingdoms conflict too where the Dynasty at the time (Southern and facing a powerful Northern force) glorified Shu Han which faced the same sort of circumstances. 

 

Oh? So you can go all the way back to WW1-2 period but we can't go anywhere past that? Who declared that was the cutoff point? And again you go to your pathetic go to and fall into a hole. I already pointed out that Christianity is also guilty of more deaths than Nationalism and that constantly going "But Christianity though" won't work on me. And as I told you, Islamic related death in India alone matches that. I do like how you will unfairly put as much as you can in the Nationalism column but will cry foul when I return the favour (got you defending Islamic killings of all things, lol). Seems like you are willing to blame all deaths in the Nationalism era as being down to due Nationalism when they clearly weren't. When for example Russia attacked Turkey with the aim of defending Christianity and such that was clearly not a Nationalistic conflict, but a religious one. 

 

??? That really all it takes? Just have some Muslim people in your country and like magic they are part of your culture? Lol. Christianity actually predated Islam in China with Nestorianism (though sizeable numbers only around when Islam supposedly made contact), Jesuits had a strong presence in China for a time until the Pope put an end to it, and of course our good friend Jesus's Chinese brother was also a Christian who converted many in the south of China... as such China has Christianity as part of its culture. Please. The Uyghurs are treated like dirt by the Chinese who are somewhat fortunate that China is more focused on wiping out Tibet then it is them.

 

I really hate to have to defend Hitler's record but he did better than you give him credit for. Had he died before declaring war he'd likely go down as one of Germany's best for uplifting Germany past the state they had been in which was one of humiliation and ruin. So what you're arguing is that Nationalism, which predates Nazism by hundreds of years, has as a basic principle a Nazi element? Do you think before you write this out? If this were true then there would be no need for Hitler to kill Jews as they'd already be dead. I'll make it nice and simple for you okay mate, do try and follow. You got a very minor amount of people like Octavius who believe in what you describe. Then you got the larger body like myself who have no issue with the Jews (I almost daily have to defend Jews from both Nazis and Islamists and their ridiculous statements). Nazis are Nationalists. Not all Nationalists are Nazis. That simple enough for you? You attacking Nazis in no way hurts me nor does you flinging mud at Christianity. If you are able, and it seems doubtful, do try to engage with who I am instead of this mad idea you've put into your head. 

 

It hasn't as I've outlined. Islam alone has killed more and when you factor in religion as a whole (which you should when you're attacking Nationalism as a whole which has many different forms to it) then it only gets even more hilariously stacked against your argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please, don't get me started. Hitler unified jack crap. For the entirety of the war, he had to keep military presence in every place he occupied. Are you serious right now? His killings of Jews had nothing to do with nationalism?! That's pretty much the only reason why he did it! Hitler believed in a twisted pseudoscience called eugenics, believing that there is a superior race, and its Germans. All those other people are infections on the body politic that he thought he needed to excise. He was shaping an ideal body politic. That's nationalism 101. 

 
And I'm not saying war is unique to nationalism. War has been a political strategy used by even the most self-proclaimed pacifists. I'm just saying that ultranationalism as an ideology has certainly killed more people.  

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss

 

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/nazi-germany-and-the-economic-miracle/

 

Hitler could be described as the most influential and perhaps the best leader of all time. There is no doubt that under the banner of the nazis, the entirety of Germany and Austria were behind him. 

 

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/polish_atrocities.htm

 

Poland was the instigator of the war, with mass executions of German citizens on a semi-regular basis. Hitler saw that this could not pass, and since the allies did nothing for it, he felt he had to take matters into his own hands to protect his kind. 

 

Doing everything for the nation is both nationalism and fascism manifest, as Hitler did.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Africa for Africans. Asia for Asians. Europe for Everybody?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hitler could be described as the most influential and perhaps the best leader of all time. 

This is why we don't argue with the alt-right nazis.  There's nothing to be learned or gained.  Save your time and energy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why we don't argue with the alt-right nazis.  There's nothing to be learned or gained.  Save your time and energy.  

The problems you have with Hitler doesn't necessarily mean he was a bad leader, perhaps in your opinion but not logically. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why we don't argue with the alt-right nazis.  There's nothing to be learned or gained.  Save your time and energy.  

 

Still waiting on someone, anyone, to point out where the proof of my supposed Nazism is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chinese writers/historians tow the line of the government which glorifies Taiping as proto-Communists to lend credibility and legitimacy to themselves. Nothing strange for China as such a thing occurred with the Three Kingdoms conflict too where the Dynasty at the time (Southern and facing a powerful Northern force) glorified Shu Han which faced the same sort of circumstances. 

 

Oh? So you can go all the way back to WW1-2 period but we can't go anywhere past that? Who declared that was the cutoff point? And again you go to your pathetic go to and fall into a hole. I already pointed out that Christianity is also guilty of more deaths than Nationalism and that constantly going "But Christianity though" won't work on me. And as I told you, Islamic related death in India alone matches that. I do like how you will unfairly put as much as you can in the Nationalism column but will cry foul when I return the favour (got you defending Islamic killings of all things, lol). Seems like you are willing to blame all deaths in the Nationalism era as being down to due Nationalism when they clearly weren't. When for example Russia attacked Turkey with the aim of defending Christianity and such that was clearly not a Nationalistic conflict, but a religious one. 

 

??? That really all it takes? Just have some Muslim people in your country and like magic they are part of your culture? Lol. Christianity actually predated Islam in China with Nestorianism (though sizeable numbers only around when Islam supposedly made contact), Jesuits had a strong presence in China for a time until the Pope put an end to it, and of course our good friend Jesus's Chinese brother was also a Christian who converted many in the south of China... as such China has Christianity as part of its culture. Please. The Uyghurs are treated like dirt by the Chinese who are somewhat fortunate that China is more focused on wiping out Tibet then it is them.

 

I really hate to have to defend Hitler's record but he did better than you give him credit for. Had he died before declaring war he'd likely go down as one of Germany's best for uplifting Germany past the state they had been in which was one of humiliation and ruin. So what you're arguing is that Nationalism, which predates Nazism by hundreds of years, has as a basic principle a Nazi element? Do you think before you write this out? If this were true then there would be no need for Hitler to kill Jews as they'd already be dead. I'll make it nice and simple for you okay mate, do try and follow. You got a very minor amount of people like Octavius who believe in what you describe. Then you got the larger body like myself who have no issue with the Jews (I almost daily have to defend Jews from both Nazis and Islamists and their ridiculous statements). Nazis are Nationalists. Not all Nationalists are Nazis. That simple enough for you? You attacking Nazis in no way hurts me nor does you flinging mud at Christianity. If you are able, and it seems doubtful, do try to engage with who I am instead of this mad idea you've put into your head. 

 

It hasn't as I've outlined. Islam alone has killed more and when you factor in religion as a whole (which you should when you're attacking Nationalism as a whole which has many different forms to it) then it only gets even more hilariously stacked against your argument. 

 

Still doesn't mean it's not nationalism.

 

You're right. We should decide on a cutoff point. I think (with pretty damn good reason) that 11th century India is in no way reflective of the modern world. You think that the age of total war is not either. Understandable. Let's start with the end of the Second World War, with the advent of the nuclear age and count up from there. Your numbers?

 

That's what everyone is suggesting. Having a single Muslim in your country infects and destroys your culture because it is multiculturalism when they reside in your borders. Also, are Uyghurs the only Muslims in China? I could treat everyone in South Carolina like dirt, but I wouldn't necessarily be against evangelical Christians. 

 

You are walking all over the place with this statement. I'm honestly not sure what I should even respond to here. 

 

The primary cb for any war in the last 2 centuries have been nationalism. Nationalism as an ideology has killed more people than Islam within those 200 years. If you want to count some obscure 11th century shitstorm and think that's relevant to modern geopolitics, that's just silly. We don't make geopolitical decisions based off of 11th century India. My point earlier was that the level of violence was a norm for its time period. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problems you have with Hitler doesn't necessarily mean he was a bad leader, perhaps in your opinion but not logically. 

 

Yeah, he was a bad leader. Unlike Roz, you don't know any history, so you wouldn't know that Hitler was responsible not only for the deaths of millions of Jews and other peoples, but that Hitler left Germany in total ruins, down 7% of its original population (mostly able-bodied males important for industrial production), and divided into occupation zones that stunted Germany's economic growth for decades after the fact. For god's sake, why don't Nazis actually know anything about themselves? Are all Neo-Nazis incompetent? Hitler would be disappointing his ideology is carried on by bald idiots who love metal.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, he was a bad leader. Unlike Roz, you don't know any history, so you wouldn't know that Hitler was responsible not only for the deaths of millions of Jews and other peoples, but that Hitler left Germany in total ruins, down 7% of its original population (mostly able-bodied males important for industrial production), and divided into occupation zones that stunted Germany's economic growth for decades after the fact. For god's sake, why don't Nazis actually know anything about themselves? Are all Neo-Nazis incompetent? Hitler would be disappointing his ideology is carried on by bald idiots who love metal.  

 

you can't say Hitler was responsible for the downfall of Germany. Prior to the war, the nazi economic miracle was a shining example of both German efficiency and the German technological and engineering prowess. The war, which Germany was not responsible for, led to the decrease in population, as the same could be said for any country participating in the war. Again, Hitler was not responsible for any policies for post-war Germany either, so the German economy has no one to blame for its economic failure than the bankers and its economists that took over economic policy post-war. The National Socialism that worked so well for Germany prior to the war was completely discarded, and that's not Hitler's fault.

 

Skinheads r bad 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skinheads aren't even National Socialists. National Socialist =/= Neo Nazi skinhead degenerate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, he was a bad leader. Unlike Roz, you don't know any history, so you wouldn't know that Hitler was responsible not only for the deaths of millions of Jews and other peoples, but that Hitler left Germany in total ruins, down 7% of its original population (mostly able-bodied males important for industrial production), and divided into occupation zones that stunted Germany's economic growth for decades after the fact. For god's sake, why don't Nazis actually know anything about themselves? Are all Neo-Nazis incompetent? Hitler would be disappointing his ideology is carried on by bald idiots who love metal.  

That's merely your opinion on events.

The biggest mistake I think Hitler made was going to war with Russia, while bad I don't think it means he was a totally bad leader as he was doing pretty well for his people more or less up until that point. 

Edited by Lightning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still doesn't mean it's not nationalism.

 

You're right. We should decide on a cutoff point. I think (with pretty damn good reason) that 11th century India is in no way reflective of the modern world. You think that the age of total war is not either. Understandable. Let's start with the end of the Second World War, with the advent of the nuclear age and count up from there. Your numbers?

 

That's what everyone is suggesting. Having a single Muslim in your country infects and destroys your culture because it is multiculturalism when they reside in your borders. Also, are Uyghurs the only Muslims in China? I could treat everyone in South Carolina like dirt, but I wouldn't necessarily be against evangelical Christians. 

 

You are walking all over the place with this statement. I'm honestly not sure what I should even respond to here. 

 

The primary cb for any war in the last 2 centuries have been nationalism. Nationalism as an ideology has killed more people than Islam within those 200 years. If you want to count some obscure 11th century shitstorm and think that's relevant to modern geopolitics, that's just silly. We don't make geopolitical decisions based off of 11th century India. My point earlier was that the level of violence was a norm for its time period. 

 

And Liu Bei was a saint while Cao Cao was pure evil. Literally telling us we should take Chinese state propaganda as truth because it suits you. I suppose if it suited you then North Korea's state propaganda would be true also right?

 

You make a statement that Nationalism has killed more people then religion. You then make the cutoff point the end of the second world war because if you don't you don't even have a hope of being anywhere near correct, though you have tried to argue otherwise already and have been embarrassed. 

 

They are the majority. The Hui people make up the rest who are simply Han Chinese people who are Muslim which are as far as I know actually treated very well as culturally they are basically identical to the Han Chinese. The Uyghurs who are not culturally Han Chinese are treated like dirt. So lets sum it up shall we. Those Muslims who culturally conform in China are treated well while those who don't get their heads cracked daily. Which... is not all that different to what I've been saying though I am kinder than China I will say... so... in supporting this Chinese system you have supported my argument... cool I guess. Glad I could get you to see the correct path.

 

To begin with in that time-span (1800s onward) there were religious wars, ethnic conflicts (which are not the same as Nationalism), colonial wars, imperialist wars, civil wars (not all naturally Nationalist no) and many other types I'm leaving out I'm sure. Nationalism as a war reason generally was only used to reacquire lost land that was seen as belonging to that nation however what you're doing is basically lumping near every war into that column to suit your agenda. Most Nationalists supported those wars yes, but that does not mean Nationalism was to blame for it happening. 

Beyond this you use these cut off points but are very selective it seems. You will recoil in defense to defend Islam and cite cut off points and yet when it comes to Nationalism which as I've told you has been for a good period anti-war (its opponents are now the warmongers) apparently we can't cut off on that, got to keep referring to Hitler nervously as you got nothing else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Liu Bei was a saint while Cao Cao was pure evil. Literally telling us we should take Chinese state propaganda as truth because it suits you. I suppose if it suited you then North Korea's state propaganda would be true also right?

 

You make a statement that Nationalism has killed more people then religion. You then make the cutoff point the end of the second world war because if you don't you don't even have a hope of being anywhere near correct, though you have tried to argue otherwise already and have been embarrassed. 

 

They are the majority. The Hui people make up the rest who are simply Han Chinese people who are Muslim which are as far as I know actually treated very well as culturally they are basically identical to the Han Chinese. The Uyghurs who are not culturally Han Chinese are treated like dirt. So lets sum it up shall we. Those Muslims who culturally conform in China are treated well while those who don't get their heads cracked daily. Which... is not all that different to what I've been saying though I am kinder than China I will say... so... in supporting this Chinese system you have supported my argument... cool I guess. Glad I could get you to see the correct path.

 

To begin with in that time-span (1800s onward) there were religious wars, ethnic conflicts (which are not the same as Nationalism), colonial wars, imperialist wars, civil wars (not all naturally Nationalist no) and many other types I'm leaving out I'm sure. Nationalism as a war reason generally was only used to reacquire lost land that was seen as belonging to that nation however what you're doing is basically lumping near every war into that column to suit your agenda. Most Nationalists supported those wars yes, but that does not mean Nationalism was to blame for it happening. 

Beyond this you use these cut off points but are very selective it seems. You will recoil in defense to defend Islam and cite cut off points and yet when it comes to Nationalism which as I've told you has been for a good period anti-war (its opponents are now the warmongers) apparently we can't cut off on that, got to keep referring to Hitler nervously as you got nothing else. 

 

I gave you scholarly articles from respected journals of Asian Studies, and your reply is to dismiss them as Chinese State propaganda?

 

I'm making the statement that Nationalism has killed more people than Islam, and I'm pointing out a hypocrisy; that of all of you declaring Islam to be a violent cancer when your ideologies has killed more people. 

 

So where do you draw the line of cultural conformity? What the hell does that even mean? Does the Muslim immigrant who is hired by Google for software development pose a threat to the US? Does it mean stop practicing your faith? See, this is the thing I don't get about you. You can understand there is a spectrum of nationalism that ranges from civic patriotism to foaming-at-the-mouth Nazis, but when it comes to Muslims, you think a 5th of the world's population are strapping on bomb vests and beating women and children. Do you see the absurdity of that? 

 

So, when Germany goes to war in WWI, is she trying to reacquire land she lost (in, I suppose, the Franco-Prussian War???)? Or are you saying nationalism wasn't a factor in the First World War?

 

And yeah, I'm basically lumping all wars in the last 200 years into the category of nationalism because that has been the motivating factor of war. Think of every slogan for every war in the past 200 years and you will see a nationalistic element to it. Patriotic fervor makes people put on brightly colored uniforms and run across broken land to get shot at by a machine gun. "Thou shall not kill" is skipped over because it is for your state and country. If you think Christians are fundamentally peaceful, then it is nationalism which breaks good peaceful Christians from their divine obligations to fellow man. 

 

 

you can't say Hitler was responsible for the downfall of Germany. Prior to the war, the nazi economic miracle was a shining example of both German efficiency and the German technological and engineering prowess. The war, which Germany was not responsible for, led to the decrease in population, as the same could be said for any country participating in the war. Again, Hitler was not responsible for any policies for post-war Germany either, so the German economy has no one to blame for its economic failure than the bankers and its economists that took over economic policy post-war. The National Socialism that worked so well for Germany prior to the war was completely discarded, and that's not Hitler's fault.

 

Skinheads r bad 

 

Which means you must absolutely love the Soviets! 

 

Also, I honestly can't tell if you are trolling or not. If you are, you are a shit troll. If you are not, you are an idiotic shit troll who could crack a book. How Nazism hasn't died a miserable death due to the sheer stupidity of its progeny is beyond me. 

 

That's merely your opinion on events.

The biggest mistake I think Hitler made was going to war with Russia, while bad I don't think it means he was a totally bad leader as he was doing pretty well for his people more or less up until that point. 

 

In the same way Bush was a great leader, but his mistake was to steamroll Iraq which made him a bad leader. I like your logic there, buddy. Again, why are all Neo-Nazis idiots? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting on someone, anyone, to point out where the proof of my supposed Nazism is. 

I want to know where mine is :P

 

Apparently being against homophobia is now Nazism. Hitler would be so proud.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can't say Hitler was responsible for the downfall of Germany. 

 

Yes you absolutely can. The Citizens of Germany weren't interested in war. The Generals had previously opposed Hitler's moves in the Rhineland, Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia  as a whole. Hitler's push for war from day 1 of his office(and before that in his writing), was directly responsible for what would become of Germany for the rest of the war. You're free to argue beyond that point, but I'm only stopping at VOE.timeline wise.

 

 

Prior to the war, the nazi economic miracle was a shining example of both German efficiency and the German technological and engineering prowess.

 

The 1950's German Economic Miracle was an actual Miracle. The Nazi "Economic Miracle" was a mirage. Hitler borrowed excessive amounts of money as well as effectively drown arms manufacturers in IOU notes, to the point where by 1939 the German economy began to stagnate and even at full production could not afford to pay its interest. Had no war occurred, Germany would have economically collapsed right back into it's Wiemar Republic days post WW1. 

 

 

The war, which Germany was not responsible for

 

GB+FR: "Yo Hitler, we've played nice with you so far, but we're being serious now. Don't touch Poland"

DE: *Invades Poland*

GB+FR: *Declare war*

You: "Germany didn't start this guys. It's not Germany's fault that they knowingly triggered a mutual defense pact."

 

That's merely your opinion on events.

The biggest mistake I think Hitler made was going to war with Russia, while bad I don't think it means he was a totally bad leader as he was doing pretty well for his people more or less up until that point. 

 

Basically summed up as, "If Germany didn't lose they would have won."

 

Why people, intentionally or unintentionally, whether playing Devil's Advocate or legitimately questioning this matter always seem to want to avoid the fact that Hitler going to war with Russia was a literal inevitability is baffling.

 

As for his people, see above re: Miracle. Hitlers policies were flat out unsustainable. He was a bad leader and failed his country with all of its goals. To secure more living space? Failed, To restore Germany economically? Failed. To Make Germany a great power again? Failed. To stop the spread of Communism? He arguably did more to advance its spread than anyone else in the period.

 

---------

 

I don't care about the conversation at large tbh, but these particular bits are just mindbendingly wrong that I couldn't resist.

Edited by Jose Rodriguez III
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave you scholarly articles from respected journals of Asian Studies, and your reply is to dismiss them as Chinese State propaganda?

 

I'm making the statement that Nationalism has killed more people than Islam, and I'm pointing out a hypocrisy; that of all of you declaring Islam to be a violent cancer when your ideologies has killed more people. 

 

So where do you draw the line of cultural conformity? What the hell does that even mean? Does the Muslim immigrant who is hired by Google for software development pose a threat to the US? Does it mean stop practicing your faith? See, this is the thing I don't get about you. You can understand there is a spectrum of nationalism that ranges from civic patriotism to foaming-at-the-mouth Nazis, but when it comes to Muslims, you think a 5th of the world's population are strapping on bomb vests and beating women and children. Do you see the absurdity of that? 

 

So, when Germany goes to war in WWI, is she trying to reacquire land she lost (in, I suppose, the Franco-Prussian War???)? Or are you saying nationalism wasn't a factor in the First World War?

 

And yeah, I'm basically lumping all wars in the last 200 years into the category of nationalism because that has been the motivating factor of war. Think of every slogan for every war in the past 200 years and you will see a nationalistic element to it. Patriotic fervor makes people put on brightly colored uniforms and run across broken land to get shot at by a machine gun. "Thou shall not kill" is skipped over because it is for your state and country. If you think Christians are fundamentally peaceful, then it is nationalism which breaks good peaceful Christians from their divine obligations to fellow man.

 

Lets be honest buddy, you don't even know who those guys are. If they are respected or not you have no clue on, you simply state it to try and appeal to authority. The simple fact is you are taking a religious sect rising up to war and declaring that Nationalism and not religion is to blame. Heck if we're playing that game we can also say that Mohammad rising up against the Meccans was a Nationalist conflict too and it had absolutely nothing to do with religion. You are desperate and everyone can see it. 

 

And you have been embarrassed in your statement and been forced to try and localise the deaths to a specific small time frame. Islam alone has killed more and it only becomes worse for you when we take religion as a whole (as we should if we're matching it against Nationalism).

 

What I've always said in these things is the problem with Islam in the west (Islam can be what it likes where its dominant) is not the Radicals (Terrorists) who are truly a tiny number, but the Conservatives/Moderates/Normal/whatever you might call them that make up the majority of Muslims. Are they on a spectrum? Of course. However the effect the most nasty are allow to have is great. In these communities of theirs that are built with the ghettos in particular (which I am against) they rule. They drill into even those who grow up and care little about religion that Jews are devils, that homosexuals are horrible, and all the rest. This is allowed to fester in their schools and Mosques where segregation also happens and its like it ain't no bad thing. People who want to leave the faith or be more liberal have to live in fear of damage to their property or getting beaten up (or worse). Then of course there is the fact that many of the young minds infected by these horrible Conservatives are made very vulnerable to being turned into a radical. What is the difference between a radical and a Muslim who thinks Jews are sub human and gays should be locked up/killed? Action. In conclusion all I've said is we should tackle the root of the matter which is what you would call a good Muslim. When being more liberal (accepting of women, gays, Jews, so forth) is seen as the norm, when the Conservative Muslims are properly shamed for the disgusting views they hold instead of being protected as they are, and finally Muslims (who want to) can safely leave the faith without fear for their lives... then we will have solved the issue of Islam in the west I would say. So no I don't believe all Muslims are suicide bombers. I can very clearly see that is a very tiny number and the real problem is with the majority who have been coddled and allowed to continue to spread absolutely revolting views without opposing (as to oppose them is magically racism).

 

Germany requiring land from the Franco-Prussian War? Germany gained land from that war even if we discount the Germanic union that resulted from the French aggression and not the other way around. As for the First World War the spark so to speak was obviously a Serbian Nationalist killing Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary. However it famously became the madness it did from that event due to the chaining of alliances which had been built up due to the political balance of power that existed in Europe. So yes, a Nationalist ultimately set the bomb off so to speak but anything would have done it really with how the situation was at the time. 

 

Really? Because its used as a slogan that means its the reason for the war? When Russia declares the Crimean war based off religion, them then saying "Fight for your country and God" suddenly means Nationalism is to blame? When Tribal people rise up against the invaders who are now plundering their land and mistreating them and they are fighting for their people, that makes it Nationalistic? When a leader declares a random aggression and then tells his people they should fight for their country that makes the reason for the war Nationalism? When France declares the Franco-Prussian war to stop the massive growing power of Prussia and they will their people on to fight for France does that mean Nationalism is to blame? No. Nationalism is a great slogan to get people to fight wars, of course it is, both in aggression and especially when on the defense. Thats how strong that bond is which you revile.

What is the reason for the war is simply why it was fought for. For example if France declared war on Ireland now (random aggression) and told its people to fight for France... then no, the reason for the war is not Nationalism. If Great Britain declared war on Ireland now citing "Ireland is de jure Great Britain" then yes the war would be Nationalistic.

Edited by Rozalia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you absolutely can. The Citizens of Germany weren't interested in war. The Generals had previously opposed Hitler's moves in the Rhineland, Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia  as a whole. Hitler's push for war from day 1 of his office(and before that in his writing), was directly responsible for what would become of Germany for the rest of the war. You're free to argue beyond that point, but I'm only stopping at VOE.timeline wise.

 

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/polish_atrocities.htm

 

Poland was the instigator of the war, with mass executions of German citizens on a semi-regular basis. Hitler saw that this could not pass, and since the allies did nothing for it, he felt he had to take matters into his own hands to protect his kind. 

 

There is no doubt in my mind that the war shouldn't have been waged, but this misconception that Poland was invaded over nothing is just plain stupid. Hitler's main purpose was always the protection of German citizens. Not only that, but the fact that GB was forced into a pact with a country that they had no political or geographical. or even historical interest/ ties with is mind boggling as well. you already know which (((special interests))) pressured GB into protecting Poland even after their atrocities against the German ethnic minority in Poland.

 

 

GB+FR: "Yo Hitler, we've played nice with you so far, but we're being serious now. Don't touch Poland"

DE: *Invades Poland*

GB+FR: *Declare war*

You: "Germany didn't start this guys. It's not Germany's fault that they knowingly triggered a mutual defense pact."

 

more like 

GB: Hey Germany we don't have any interest in European politics, we just want to control africa and asia, just do whatever France tells you to.

France: (still butthurt over being humiliated in WWI and the Franco-Prussian war) Be my !@#$ and never become a great power again, also you need to be a third of the size you were prior to the war - don't forget, you can't touch Poland either because reasons.

Germany: wtf, screw y'all, this is a joke

 

if you wanna get into the treaty of Versailles we already know that Germany was unfairly treated, mostly by France because England didnt care about Europe as much. France being the butthurt people they are. Albeit, Russia should have been solely responsible for Poland imo, cosidering they actually have a clear path to it without having to cross Germany to get to it - unlike France and England. Ah well, you could have the same argument over the Schlieffen plan in WWI.

 

 

The 1950's German Economic Miracle was an actual Miracle. The Nazi "Economic Miracle" was a mirage. Hitler borrowed excessive amounts of money as well as effectively drown arms manufacturers in IOU notes, to the point where by 1939 the German economy began to stagnate and even at full production could not afford to pay its interest. Had no war occurred, Germany would have economically collapsed right back into it's Wiemar Republic days post WW1. 

 

I mean, sure if you wanna go by traditional economics but that's the argument for every 'failed' socialist sysem - they borrowed their way to their death. You cant deny the fact that everyone in Germany was employed, everyoe in Germany had a role and everyone was more or less happy with the system. If you couldnt work in the private sector, you could join the military or build roads. The economy stagnated because so many people were preparing for war, not because of the effectiveness of the system lmao. If everyone didn't have any beef with Germany, it would have prospered under the NatSocs. Instead of preparing for war so rigorously as they did, they could have invested more in technology or founding new cities and towns, but they were already making so many improvements to infrastructure (roads) that they probably couldn't work on that anymore than they were. I mean, I'm no socialist, but when something works, it works. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.