• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nazi vets parade in Latvia dividing society

Hmmm i always thought a freedom fighter was someone who fought for freedom. You know fight against imperialism... I never knew Nazis=freedom :shock:

depends on what side of the coin you were on. Just look at Stern, a jew, who offered alliance with the Nazi because he was fighting against British imperialism. Not that I have much sympathy for Stern or the nazi, but it highlights the rather complicated political nature of the conflict that often gets overlooked
 
The nazis were so horrible that the french preferred to be occupied by them than "liberated" by the americans. In reality, nazi germany had a much higher profile and were definitely considered the good guys during WW2 in the various eastern European countries that were well aware of the USSRs methods and agenda.

lol, lets not overlook the fact that we are talking about the type of people that conducted the The Lietukis Garage massacre
 
1.Yes, freedom fighters, against the greater evil of their time, communism. you'd think you'd be aware of that mister "socialist", since the diabolical regime cloaked itself with that very term.

2.Nazis were a politcal party. Nothing more, nothing less. The regular german army and the those who were smart enough to know the USSR was by far the greater evil and hence fought against them were predominantly not "Nazis".


3. pay me some money and maybe I'll dispel some more of your ignorance of European history.

Communism was NOT the greater evil. Communism is a twisted ideology, no doubt, and Stalin was a twisted man, no doubt. But no part of communism came with the idea of Lebensraum, where Slavic land would be conquered and millions of Slavs killed and enslaved in order to make way for Germans. Hitler was a pretty ****ty ally, too. Betrayed the USSR, betrayed the Allies when he conquered Czechoslovakia.

Take Miklos Horthy. Regent of Hungary in the absence of a king, and the leader of the successor state to the Hungarian Democratic Republic, he feared and despised communism, and as a result had fascist sympathies. When Horthy joined the war on the side of the Axis, Hitler gradually usurped more and more power away from Horthy and his prime ministers. Horthy wasn't even fully informed of the horror of the deportations of Hungarian Jews until after the fact. When it became clear that Hitler was losing, Horthy attempted to make peace with the Soviets, and Hitler responded by deposing him. In the end it wasn't worth it for him or for Hungary, as it ended up becoming a Soviet satellite state anyways, which wouldn't have happened if Hungary didn't ally with Hitler.

So save us your revisionism.
 
The nazis were so horrible that the french preferred to be occupied by them than "liberated" by the americans. In reality, nazi germany had a much higher profile and were definitely considered the good guys during WW2 in the various eastern European countries that were well aware of the USSRs methods and agenda.

The Eastern Europeans considered the Nazis the "good guys?" Is that why partisan movements all across the spectrum erupted in basically every occupied country?
 
Seems to be something of a riddle within an enigma for The DemSocialist to be upset about the National Socialist Party

Why? The Nazi's were exteme right wing fascists who's mortal enemy was socialism. Read some frickin' history books.

Unless you really think that Iran's Republican Guard were really Republicans?
 
Omg, someone with some bloody decency and historical perspective.

While ofc, nazism wasn't a shinning light, and it lead to the destruction of germany, communism wasn't good in its entirely, as some would claim, and it was a far worst evil than Nazism ever could have been. It destroyed Russia, the Russian people, took down half of Europe with it and spread its vile, poisonous tentacles all over the world map, causing the arms race and creating sufficient nuclear arsenal to blow the world up 20x over.

Not to mention the whole crimes against humanity part... that would take ages to detail.

Nazism 'wasn't a shining light'? Wow! thanks for clearing that up for us.
 
1.Yes, freedom fighters, against the greater evil of their time, communism. you'd think you'd be aware of that mister "socialist", since the diabolical regime cloaked itself with that very term.

2.Nazis were a politcal party. Nothing more, nothing less. The regular german army and the those who were smart enough to know the USSR was by far the greater evil and hence fought against them were predominantly not "Nazis".


3. pay me some money and maybe I'll dispel some more of your ignorance of European history.

YOur ignorance of European history is amazing. The Nazi's were Germany and Germany were the Nazis. The German Army was composed of nazi soldiers and led by committed nazis. They were only slightly less evil than their Waffen SS brethren. This whitewashing of German history from 1933-1945 is truly amusing. Nobody was more popular in Germany than Adolph Hitler. Until they started losing the war, of course.
 
Omg, someone with some bloody decency and historical perspective.

While ofc, nazism wasn't a shinning light, and it lead to the destruction of germany, communism wasn't good in its entirely, as some would claim, and it was a far worst evil than Nazism ever could have been. It destroyed Russia, the Russian people, took down half of Europe with it and spread its vile, poisonous tentacles all over the world map, causing the arms race and creating sufficient nuclear arsenal to blow the world up 20x over.

Not to mention the whole crimes against humanity part... that would take ages to detail.

The bolded part is pure apologism and revisionism. Like I said to vendur, no aspect of communism had the concepts of Lebensraum, exterminating of Jews, subjugation of Slavs, subjugation of non-Germans, supreme racial superiority, etc. Communism allowed the Soviet Union to become a world power - which is miraculous considering that Tsarist Russia had been constantly humiliated on the international stage - without starting the largest and most terrible war in history.

Communism is simply a failure in practice based on Marx's false perceptions of reality. Nazism is a corrupt ideology in an of itself. That's the difference between them.
 
They were freedom fighters... they got rid of the soviets... for a while any ways. The Russians are hated in those places, hence anyone fighting to get rid of them are freedom fighters technically.

Got rid of the Soviet occupiers and replaced them with Nazi occupiers. Doesnt sound like much of a freedom fighter
 
Nazism 'wasn't a shining light'? Wow! thanks for clearing that up for us.

:)).

It was a metaphore. I could have been harsher, but I was trying to make a point against communism.
 
The bolded part is pure apologism and revisionism. Like I said to vendur, no aspect of communism had the concepts of Lebensraum, exterminating of Jews, subjugation of Slavs, subjugation of non-Germans, supreme racial superiority, etc. Communism allowed the Soviet Union to become a world power - which is miraculous considering that Tsarist Russia had been constantly humiliated on the international stage - without starting the largest and most terrible war in history.

Communism is simply a failure in practice based on Marx's false perceptions of reality. Nazism is a corrupt ideology in an of itself. That's the difference between them.

No, it isn't apologism or revisionism at all. First off, if we are to be apologists, all nations that took part in the war have a lot to apologize for because all nations, with all the major political players, industrialists, bankers and other influential people were in the wrong.

Secondly. Tsarist Russia was never humilliated on the international stage, at all. It had one of the most respected houses ruling it, one of the largest armies, the most land, a history of victories in war, and much more. It was, furthermore, a center of knowledge and culture. Most of the great Russian writers were born before communism took over. Most of the great composers and men of culture and integrity were in the era before communism took over. Communism destroyed Russia and the Russian people, along with all east European nations and people. Yes, tsarist Russia wasn't an industrialized nation as the UK was, or as germany was, at the start of WW1. But it is much harder to industrialize a nation as huge as Russia, not to mention that Tsarist Russia stretched further than the USSR did, occupying much of Poland, Ukraine all the way to the Nistor river.

And make no mistake, you can't distance yourself from communism. "Communism is simply a failure in practice based on Marx's false perceptions of reality" this is complete and utter non-sense. The way communism was implemented, especially during the stalinist era, was the best possible version that communism could ever be implemented as. The closest to the perfect ideal of communism. And we all know what that resulted in. Over 15mil in gulags, about 20mil died in the Holodomor, millions deported from their homelands for no good reason. Millions more shot and killed to instill terror. Nothing beats the commies in the human suffering department.

And of course it had a superiority doctrine. All nations during WW2 had a superiority doctrine... except the French maybe... and the British had mostly a dehumanization doctrine to keep their men fighting, but the USSR, the nazis, the Americans, the Japs, all had superiority doctrines against their enemies, dehumanizing them as much as possible. They were no better than the nazis in that regard.None was better. There were no "good guys" or "bad guys". If we look to the world according to how these nations saw each other, collectively, we would be looking at a world of inferior human beings.
 
Funny how the right often wants to argue that the Nazis were left wing because the word socialist was in the name of their official party, and yet the only people arguing that the Nazis weren't all that bad are rightwingers.
 
Communism was NOT the greater evil. Communism is a twisted ideology, no doubt, and Stalin was a twisted man, no doubt. But no part of communism came with the idea of Lebensraum, where Slavic land would be conquered and millions of Slavs killed and enslaved in order to make way for Germans. Hitler was a pretty ****ty ally, too. Betrayed the USSR, betrayed the Allies when he conquered Czechoslovakia.

Ya, the communists just wanted to kill off all christians, muslims, anyone with any significant wealth etc. Just half the planet, that's all. Oh gee, they didn't call something "lebensraum", ohhh, a scary German name. Wow that's really evil. Stalin was just as hppy to grab as much land as he could take hungry hippo style, but ohgee he didn't come up with a catchy word for it. it's no wonder you toss around words like revisionism so flippantly as you are completely ignorant of pretty much all applicable history here. Read a book and quit watching Hollywood produced movies.

Take Miklos Horthy. Regent of Hungary in the absence of a king, and the leader of the successor state to the Hungarian Democratic Republic, he feared and despised communism, and as a result had fascist sympathies. When Horthy joined the war on the side of the Axis, Hitler gradually usurped more and more power away from Horthy and his prime ministers. Horthy wasn't even fully informed of the horror of the deportations of Hungarian Jews until after the fact. When it became clear that Hitler was losing, Horthy attempted to make peace with the Soviets, and Hitler responded by deposing him. In the end it wasn't worth it for him or for Hungary, as it ended up becoming a Soviet satellite state anyways, which wouldn't have happened if Hungary didn't ally with Hitler.

So save us your revisionism.

LOL. Ok I'm done with you. You are an absolute waste of anyone's time that is not a moron or a bigot. The soviets wouldn't have taken over eastern europe if some of them had not sided with the germany? ROFLMAO. And you dare call me the revisionist? Publick edjewkayshun does it again.
 
Ya, the communists just wanted to kill off all christians, muslims, anyone with any significant wealth etc. Just half the planet, that's all. Oh gee, they didn't call something "lebensraum", ohhh, a scary German name. Wow that's really evil. Stalin was just as hppy to grab as much land as he could take hungry hippo style, but ohgee he didn't come up with a catchy word for it. it's no wonder you toss around words like revisionism so flippantly as you are completely ignorant of pretty much all applicable history here. Read a book and quit watching Hollywood produced movies.



LOL. Ok I'm done with you. You are an absolute waste of anyone's time that is not a moron or a bigot. The soviets wouldn't have taken over eastern europe if some of them had not sided with the germany? ROFLMAO. And you dare call me the revisionist? Publick edjewkayshun does it again.

If you ever enter college, you just might encounter the term "Tu toque fallacy".

Who knows -- perhaps you might even learn what it means.
 
Funny how the right often wants to argue that the Nazis were left wing because the word socialist was in the name of their official party, and yet the only people arguing that the Nazis weren't all that bad are rightwingers.

I'm assuming that was directed at me.

There is no such thing as "all bad". Even communism isn't "all bad", just mostly bad.

And the nazi party is falsely called "right wing" or "extreme right wing" because it has very little to do with the right of the political spectrum.

Nazis had to differentiate themselves from the communists, whom they considered the worst scum on the earth, not ideologically, just propaganda-wise. And because both the nazis and the communists were vying for the same electorate, the downtrotten, unemployed and the worker class, they needed more selling points on their agenda.

Politically, they are the same.
Economically, the nazis, and fascism in general, is not a control-freak in the way communism is. In that, it allows for important areas of economic life to be in the hands of independent, private people and even foreign investments; where as communism tends to control all important economic areas. All the industry, the services, the distribution, etc. As much as it can. So that is the only real, significant difference between communists and nazis. A degree of economic freedom. From a political standpoint... they are the same. From a social liberties standpoint... mostly the same. Maybe the nazis allowed for a somewhat more loose of restrictions society than communism did in comparable times, but that is tied into the more economic liberty people under the nazi regim, enjoyed.
 
If you ever enter college, you just might encounter the term "Tu toque fallacy".

Who knows -- perhaps you might even learn what it means.

You mean to say: tu quoque

Not Tu tuque fallacy. Fallacy is not even latin....
 
No, it isn't apologism or revisionism at all. First off, if we are to be apologists, all nations that took part in the war have a lot to apologize for because all nations, with all the major political players, industrialists, bankers and other influential people were in the wrong.
I agree, and may I add, especially the Soviet Union on the Allies' side. I'm sure you've heard of how Stalin's men marched through Poland, raping and pillaging. And not all Germans were bad, Rommel for one.
Secondly. Tsarist Russia was never humilliated on the international stage, at all. It had one of the most respected houses ruling it, one of the largest armies, the most land, a history of victories in war, and much more. It was, furthermore, a center of knowledge and culture. Most of the great Russian writers were born before communism took over. Most of the great composers and men of culture and integrity were in the era before communism took over. Communism destroyed Russia and the Russian people, along with all east European nations and people. Yes, tsarist Russia wasn't an industrialized nation as the UK was, or as germany was, at the start of WW1. But it is much harder to industrialize a nation as huge as Russia, not to mention that Tsarist Russia stretched further than the USSR did, occupying much of Poland, Ukraine all the way to the Nistor river.
Tsarist Russia was humiliated all the time. It failed miserably in Crimea. Austria abandoned it. Japan kicked its ass. Germany abandoned it. Britain allied with Japan. The Congress of Berlin shamed Russia despite its victory in the Russo-Turkish war. Liberals everywhere despised it because of its backwardness and autocratic rule.

What's funny is how you mention how hard it is to industrialize a nation such as Russia, but omit that Stalin was able to do it very rapidly.
And make no mistake, you can't distance yourself from communism. "Communism is simply a failure in practice based on Marx's false perceptions of reality" this is complete and utter non-sense. The way communism was implemented, especially during the stalinist era, was the best possible version that communism could ever be implemented as. The closest to the perfect ideal of communism. And we all know what that resulted in. Over 15mil in gulags, about 20mil died in the Holodomor, millions deported from their homelands for no good reason. Millions more shot and killed to instill terror. Nothing beats the commies in the human suffering department.
Stalinism went against the foundations of Bolshevism and communism in general. Communists in America and the rest of the world were appalled by Stalin, especially the liberal ones. Bolshevism itself was a perversion of Marxism anyways, there hasn't ever been a Marxist state and there never will be because the workers will never revolt.

And all of those examples you listed occurred under Stalin. That was because of him more than anything else. He was a psychopath, all he cared about was his own power. He didn't give a rat's ass about the true meaning of communism. Note that communism was significantly less brutal under Khrushchev, and Gorbachev was very liberal.

And of course it had a superiority doctrine. All nations during WW2 had a superiority doctrine... except the French maybe... and the British had mostly a dehumanization doctrine to keep their men fighting, but the USSR, the nazis, the Americans, the Japs, all had superiority doctrines against their enemies, dehumanizing them as much as possible. They were no better than the nazis in that regard.None was better. There were no "good guys" or "bad guys". If we look to the world according to how these nations saw each other, collectively, we would be looking at a world of inferior human beings.
None of the other nations thought that the other side should be enslaved and exterminated except for the Nazis, although Stalin did want to be able to extract forced labor from occupied Germany.
 
Now you're even posting like a Nazi would.

the communists just wanted to kill off all christians, muslims, anyone with any significant wealth etc.
Actually, I think only Pol Pot did a lot of killing in that regard. Communism was anti-religion but from what I understand the religious were not murdered unless they opposed the communists or it was in Cambodia.
Oh gee, they didn't call something "lebensraum", ohhh, a scary German name. Wow that's really evil. Stalin was just as hppy to grab as much land as he could take hungry hippo style, but ohgee he didn't come up with a catchy word for it.
Get back to me when you find out what the Nazis thought should happen to the people who already lived in the land they conquered
it's no wonder you toss around words like revisionism so flippantly as you are completely ignorant of pretty much all applicable history here. Read a book and quit watching Hollywood produced movies.
And you still have yet to refute anything I've said.


LOL. Ok I'm done with you.
Wow, I respond to you once and you give up.
You are an absolute waste of anyone's time that is not a moron or a bigot.
Well it's good I'm not wasting your time then.
The soviets wouldn't have taken over eastern europe if some of them had not sided with the germany?
Aside from Poland, yes. Yugoslavia and Greece both opposed the Nazis and they both remained autonomous if not fully independent of the Kremlin.
ROFLMAO. And you dare call me the revisionist? Publick edjewkayshun does it again.

No facts, no points, just crying "You lose!" LOL
 
1)I agree, and may I add, especially the Soviet Union on the Allies' side. I'm sure you've heard of how Stalin's men marched through Poland, raping and pillaging. And not all Germans were bad, Rommel for one.

2)Tsarist Russia was humiliated all the time. It failed miserably in Crimea. Austria abandoned it. Japan kicked its ass. Germany abandoned it. Britain allied with Japan. The Congress of Berlin shamed Russia despite its victory in the Russo-Turkish war. Liberals everywhere despised it because of its backwardness and autocratic rule.

3)What's funny is how you mention how hard it is to industrialize a nation such as Russia, but omit that Stalin was able to do it very rapidly.

Stalinism went against the foundations of Bolshevism and communism in general. Communists in America and the rest of the world were appalled by Stalin, especially the liberal ones. Bolshevism itself was a perversion of Marxism anyways, there hasn't ever been a Marxist state and there never will be because the workers will never revolt.

And all of those examples you listed occurred under Stalin. That was because of him more than anything else. He was a psychopath, all he cared about was his own power. He didn't give a rat's ass about the true meaning of communism. Note that communism was significantly less brutal under Khrushchev, and Gorbachev was very liberal.

4)
None of the other nations thought that the other side should be enslaved and exterminated except for the Nazis, although Stalin did want to be able to extract forced labor from occupied Germany.

1) Rommel was a military general who took his orders and marched, like most soldiers. I thought that when we are discussing nazis or communists we are referring to people within the political structure that were responsible for the decision making and such...

2) Well, dooh, of course it was hated. Empires usually are. This doesn't mean that it wasn't a world power. Yes, it lost the war with Japan before WW1, but that was because as I said, Russia was a big country, hard to industrialize, especially in the eastern part of the empire. Besides, it had a large border to take care of. So its no wonder that a very focused, very well industrialized and westernized Japan managed to win the war before WW1. So yes, it wasn't the most advanced of nations, and it resisted change pretty heavily, but there were signs of westernization happening. Several cities, including St. Petersburg, were very well industrialized cities and center of knowledge and culture. After the tsarist regime was brutally removed by Lenin and friends, Leningrad continued to be an industrial powerhouse... but it lost its cultural appeal. How many great writers had the Soviet Union produced that are still considered worthwhile today? Almost none... all the ones that are known are known because they wrote stories that displayed the reality and the cruelty of the soviet union and communism. And those people served time in very bad places.

3) It's easy to achieve great things when you don't care about the lives of people and you don't care what they have to go through, or the consequences.
Stalinism is not "against" the roots of bolshevism. It was the natural progression of it. Stalinism is the peak of communism ideology that was achieved in the history of the world. yes, the gulags did close after Stalin died. But Siberia didn't... Siberia was still there, a home for all the enemies of the state that communist leaders didn't agree with. The home of many abuses done by various pencil-pushing communist officials. Gorbaciov was forced by the times to be more "moderate" because the USSR was on the rocks. It was receiving foreign aid from the US and food to survive.

4) Stalin took a napkin, roughly drew a sketch of Europe, made a line through the middle, and then said "na zdrowie" while raising a glass with Churchill and Roosevelt to honor their victory...
 
I can only LOL at those from the cushy western front judging how people choose to celebrate their national heritage on the other side of "iron curtain" fault line.
 
It's funny, I would not have thought that a thread talking about how bad the Nazis were would become so contentious.
 
It's funny, I would not have thought that a thread talking about how bad the Nazis were would become so contentious.

When you're claiming that only Pol Pot killed religious people for simply being religious then the joke is on you. Except it's not funny, it's just ignorant.
 
You mean to say: tu quoque

Not Tu tuque fallacy. Fallacy is not even latin....

yes, tu quoque. My bad.

The important matter is what it means and what people are defending when they resort to such.
 
Naziism is on the rise in Europe because of the increase in anti-immigrant sentiment over the past decade.

Americans don't tend to understand hate speech laws but in Europe history could repeat itself if Nazis start engaging in public activism during times of popular unrest.
 
1) Rommel was a military general who took his orders and marched, like most soldiers. I thought that when we are discussing nazis or communists we are referring to people within the political structure that were responsible for the decision making and such...
We were discussing the leaders of the war, though. And after all, it is the soldiers that make such things possible.
2) Well, dooh, of course it was hated. Empires usually are.
France, Italy and America were the only world powers without "empire" in their name, and France and Italy had an empire anyways.

This doesn't mean that it wasn't a world power. Yes, it lost the war with Japan before WW1, but that was because as I said, Russia was a big country, hard to industrialize, especially in the eastern part of the empire.
It also had its interests screwed over in the Balkans where it did win militarily in the Russo-Turkish war, and it totally lost in the Crimean War. That was on the western side.
So yes, it wasn't the most advanced of nations, and it resisted change pretty heavily, but there were signs of westernization happening. Several cities, including St. Petersburg, were very well industrialized cities and center of knowledge and culture.
More so than London or Vienna?
After the tsarist regime was brutally removed by Lenin and friends
The Bolsheviks didn't remove the tsar, he abdicated and was replaced by the republican Provisional Government. That was what was brutally overthrown, and then the tsar murdered. The tsar was a bastard, anyway. The tsarist White Movement was crushed in the Civil War, but it was about the same as the Bolsheviks brutality-wise.
Leningrad continued to be an industrial powerhouse... but it lost its cultural appeal. How many great writers had the Soviet Union produced that are still considered worthwhile today? Almost none... all the ones that are known are known because they wrote stories that displayed the reality and the cruelty of the soviet union and communism. And those people served time in very bad places.
That's a good point.
3) It's easy to achieve great things when you don't care about the lives of people and you don't care what they have to go through, or the consequences.
And you think the tsar cared?

Stalinism is not "against" the roots of bolshevism. It was the natural progression of it. Stalinism is the peak of communism ideology that was achieved in the history of the world.
It was basically socialistic fascism, not communism. True communism can never be achieved. Stalinism is an embarrassment for communism even today.
yes, the gulags did close after Stalin died. But Siberia didn't... Siberia was still there, a home for all the enemies of the state that communist leaders didn't agree with. The home of many abuses done by various pencil-pushing communist officials.
The Holodomor and the great famines occurred under Stalin. After Stalin the Chinese began to claim that the Soviet Union was practicing a revised form of communism.
Gorbaciov was forced by the times to be more "moderate" because the USSR was on the rocks. It was receiving foreign aid from the US and food to survive.
It had been receiving grain ever since Khrushchev's agricultural reform failed.
4) Stalin took a napkin, roughly drew a sketch of Europe, made a line through the middle, and then said "na zdrowie" while raising a glass with Churchill and Roosevelt to honor their victory...

Roosevelt died soon, and Churchill and Truman were hardcore anti-commies.
 
Back
Top Bottom