Ukraine

[Ken Gargett]

6 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

While they engaged in it I don't think Nazis are synonymous with genocide.

i really don't (didn't) have any intention of jumping back in, but this??? really? you don't think that the holocaust might suggest otherwise? 

[NSXCIGAR]

21 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

i really don't (didn't) have any intention of jumping back in, but this??? really? you don't think that the holocaust might suggest otherwise? 

My point is only that you can have Nazis and not have genocide and vice versa. If there had been no Jews or gays in Nazi Germany there wouldn't have been genocide. 

I just think it's a dangerous leap to label one as a Nazi and conclude they must have genocide on their mind. Nazi, first and foremost, is an economic and political structure program.

[Ken Gargett]

1 minute ago, NSXCIGAR said:

My point is only that you can have Nazis and not have genocide and vice versa. If there had been no Jews or gays in Nazi Germany there wouldn't have been genocide. 

you can certainly have genocide without nazis - plenty of examples of that. genocide was nazi policy. i don't think you can argue that if no jews or gays, no genocide. bit like a robber saying if i had not needed the money, there would have been no crime.

the nazis got to power with a policy of 'purity of blood' and anti-semitism was rampant from the start. laws were passed and the actions were taken. it was genocide pure and simple. i don't see any way it can be defended. the nazis and genocide will always be inextricably linked. as we know, millions were murdered. 

they murdered six million jews but also five million others - poles, the romani, soviets, serbs, disabled (both mentally and physically), and not sure too many people of colour would have felt safe in nazi germany, or any of their occupied territories. it was their stated intention to rid the world of these races/groups. 

genocide was nazi policy. it is not possible to paint it any other way.  

[NSXCIGAR]

11 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

the nazis got to power with a policy of 'purity of blood' and anti-semitism was rampant from the start.

That I would disagree with. Nazis took power before there was any official government action against, we'll call them non-aryans. It was quickly adopted but not in 1933. 

And it's well documented the Nazis tried to deport the Jews et. al., only resorting to mass murder when they were unable to rid themselves of them. So genocide as a fundamental tenet of Naziism I would disagree with. They adopted it, they embraced it, but that doesn't mean it is fundamental to the ideology. 

It's like saying imperialism/colonialism/slavery is fundamental to capitalism or republicanism. Have capitalist and republican governments engaged in that? Yes. Is it fundamental to the ideologies? No. 

I just see a difference between National Socialism as an ideology and 1930s Nazi Germany. Maybe that's where I'm being misinterpreted. I put the genocide more on Hitler's personal policies than the Nazi party agenda per se, although he was working through the Nazi party I suppose. 

I don't think there's much evidence that the Nazis or Hitler wanted to kill every jew, gay, slav etc. They wanted Germany and it's proclaimed territories pure. If they had to kill them they would, but there's no evidence the Nazis or Hitler had any intention of hunting down and killing Jews in every corner of the world. 

 

 

[Ken Gargett]

13 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

That I would disagree with. Nazis took power before there was any official government action against, we'll call them non-aryans. It was quickly adopted but not in 1933. 

And it's well documented the Nazis tried to deport the Jews et. al., only resorting to mass murder when they were unable to rid themselves of them. So genocide as a fundamental tenet of Naziism I would disagree with. They adopted it, they embraced it, but that doesn't mean it is fundamental to the ideology. 

It's like saying imperialism/colonialism/slavery is fundamental to capitalism or republicanism. Have capitalist and republican governments engaged in that? Yes. Is it fundamental to the ideologies? No. 

I just see a difference between National Socialism as an ideology and 1930s Nazi Germany. Maybe that's where I'm being misinterpreted. I put the genocide more on Hitler's personal policies than the Nazi party agenda per se, although he was working through the Nazi party I suppose. 

I don't think there's much evidence that the Nazis or Hitler wanted to kill every jew, gay, slav etc. They wanted Germany and it's proclaimed territories pure. If they had to kill them they would, but there's no evidence the Nazis or Hitler had any intention of hunting down and killing Jews in every corner of the world. 

 

 

not trying to avoid the discussion. priorities - interstate rugby starting now and tomorrow i have champers events, but i will revert. 

 

13 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

That I would disagree with. Nazis took power before there was any official government action against, we'll call them non-aryans. It was quickly adopted but not in 1933. 

And it's well documented the Nazis tried to deport the Jews et. al., only resorting to mass murder when they were unable to rid themselves of them. So genocide as a fundamental tenet of Naziism I would disagree with. They adopted it, they embraced it, but that doesn't mean it is fundamental to the ideology. 

It's like saying imperialism/colonialism/slavery is fundamental to capitalism or republicanism. Have capitalist and republican governments engaged in that? Yes. Is it fundamental to the ideologies? No. 

I just see a difference between National Socialism as an ideology and 1930s Nazi Germany. Maybe that's where I'm being misinterpreted. I put the genocide more on Hitler's personal policies than the Nazi party agenda per se, although he was working through the Nazi party I suppose. 

I don't think there's much evidence that the Nazis or Hitler wanted to kill every jew, gay, slav etc. They wanted Germany and it's proclaimed territories pure. If they had to kill them they would, but there's no evidence the Nazis or Hitler had any intention of hunting down and killing Jews in every corner of the world. 

 

 

no, don't agree at all. i don't think that the colonialism etc is a valid analogy but i'll that leave that alone. and i would say that hitler's personal policies and the nazi policies were pretty much his policies. don't recall any suggestion that anyone opposed them or put forward contrary policies. certainly not twice. 

hitler came to power early 1933. dachau was opened in March 1933. it is impossible to believe that genocide was not their intention right from the start - from before they came to power. 

while it is true that "official german policy" was to see jews emigrate - up until the early days of the war i think - it was not that simple. quite a few made neighbouring european countries in the early days but the stats suggest a large percentage of them were later captured and killed after the nazi invasions. some did get away to the US and britain etc, but those countries had some fairly strict policies of their own about immigration. so it was much more difficult than simply hopping on a train or boat. 

also, the nazis implemented an extremely heavy emigration tax, which prevented many from leaving, and proves the suggestion that they encouraged emigration to be a lie. in addition, they put very strict controls on the amount of money they could transfer out of germany, effectively making it near impossible, despite whatever the 'official' policy might be. 

within the first year of hitler in power, there were endless laws and regulations passed opposing the jews. they were officially declared second class citizens. public book burnings, party members attacking jews and their property, the police and courts no longer to protect the jews, contact with jews disparaged and everyone encouraged not to, boycotts of their businesses and shops were implemented, kosher products banned. jews forced out of public positions and more. restricted from areas of cities, banned from public schools. 

as soon as hitler had the powers of a dictator, which basically happened at the next election later that year, it was full on. 

"I don't think there's much evidence that the Nazis or Hitler wanted to kill every jew, gay, slav etc. They wanted Germany and it's proclaimed territories pure. If they had to kill them they would, but there's no evidence the Nazis or Hitler had any intention of hunting down and killing Jews in every corner of the world." i am truly staggered by this. i am assuming that you are not a holocaust denier (if i have that wrong then we are never likely to reach any consensus), in which case, i would contend that the holocaust is exactly that evidence. and fairly compelling evidence. there were around half a million jews in germany at the start of the hitler era. obviously some escaped but yet they still killed 6 million. so yes, they wanted to kill all they could find. 80-90% of the jews they killed were from outside germany. hunting them down and killing them is exactly what they did. wherever they went, they did their utmost to exterminate the jewish population. had they succeeded in invading britain and winning the war, do you really think they would have said 'enough'? there is absolutely no evidence that they would have stopped. 

"if they had to kill them, they would". is that what you really meant? how many women and children were gassed? based on what you have said, you believe that they felt that they "had" to kill those women and children. why? 

the nazis may not have started killing jews on day one of their reign but they did start putting everything in place for them to do just that. right from the start. the only possible reason you could say that it was not genocide was simply because the word did not exist until years later. if it had, it would have been described as genocide at the time and should be in retrospect. 

there is surely no question that this genocide was very much front and centre of the nazi policies. and they will forever be linked to it.

[Webbo]

11 hours ago, RichG said:

Has anyone seen anyone answer the question straight, as to why no one is willing to take SWIFT action yet?

The answer I saw was that the balance of sanctions are equally if not more catastrophic, which seems like bullshit. 

My understanding (and I'm certainly no financial expert) is that the actions taken by the US on effectively stopping all dollar clearance transactions by the 2 biggest Russian banks is significantly more powerful and disruptive. SWIFT (as I understand it in my layman's terms) is a more a notification system rather than the actual method of transaction. It's similar to the email you receive from amazon saying your goods are on their way, its not the actual mechanism for physically delivering you them.

[Kitchen]

If anyone is still wondering why sanctions are not going to accomplish a damn (or if you are still convinced they will) and why the ultimate end to this will come from military action that demoralizes Russians, merely read George Kennan's 'Long Telegram' and juxtapose that with Orwell's 1940s review of 'Mein Kampf.'  The last paragraph in particular is the most reveling, 

'Also he has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all ‘progressive’ thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security and avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues. The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won’t do. Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings don’t only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades. However they may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life. The same is probably true of Stalin’s militarised version of Socialism. All three of the great dictators have enhanced their power by imposing intolerable burdens on their peoples. Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people ‘I offer you a good time,’ Hitler has said to them ‘I offer you struggle, danger and death,’ and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet. Perhaps later on they will get sick of it and change their minds, as at the end of the last war. After a few years of slaughter and starvation ‘Greatest happiness of the greatest number’ is a good slogan, but at this moment ‘Better an end with horror than a horror without end’ is a winner. Now that we are fighting against the man who coined it, we ought not to underrate its emotional appeal.”

Now, what military action will eventually demoralizes Russians?  Perhaps it will be the site of their military piling Ukrainian bodies in the streets of Kyiv while burying Russian solders at home from ongoing gorilla warfare.  Or perhaps Ukraine will fall and our modern Neville will have invited another country to be invaded by the Russians, or the Chinese, and it will be Autumn of 1939 again.  Let's hope the good people of Russia will get sick of it and change their minds sooner rather then later.  

[helix]

As simple as this may sound , perhaps its mainly that  Putin feels threatened ( calling it a Nazi regime as cover for the truth)  by a burgeoning successful true western democracy on his doorstep ?

[MrBirdman]

9 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

If there had been no Jews or gays in Nazi Germany there wouldn't have been genocide. 

Jews and “gays” (and Roma and disabled and left wingers) were targets of a deep seated sense of anger and alienation that would have found an outlet in some group or another. 

Your statement is also completely obscene  - “if there had been no gays”??? There are gay people everywhere. That’s like saying if there were no black people in Africa we wouldn’t have had slavery. What the hell. 

[99call]

Would be so funny to see China do a land grab now on Russia's southern border right now, and make them fight on two fronts

[MrBirdman]

8 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

That I would disagree with. Nazis took power before there was any official government action against, we'll call them non-aryans. It was quickly adopted but not in 1933. 

And it's well documented the Nazis tried to deport the Jews et. al., only resorting to mass murder when they were unable to rid themselves of them. So genocide as a fundamental tenet of Naziism I would disagree with

 

Wrong. Let’s get this straight - from long before he even came into power Hitler had called for an invasion of “Slavic” countries - basically Russia and Eastern Europe - and the extermination and replacement of their inhabitants with ethnic Germans. This is what is meant by “Lebensraum” or “living room.” Genocide - extermination of unwanted groups, including the disabled - was absolutely part and parcel of Nazism and this is beyond dispute or reasonable opinion. 

[PigFish]

I tend to find this 'wide divide' distinction between national socialist and communists a bit of a joke.  Nazis were rank amateurs (please don't see that as a defense, I am likely the harshest anti-communist/socialist on this form) compared to communists... of any ethnicity.

Hell the damn Soviets and Nazis were allied in the early days of WWII. If they were not so much alike, they would like likely stayed allied. There is not a slim hair of difference between them. Beyond the purges and murders of the early Soviet revolution, ask any Pol about Katyn.. The Nazis learned genocide from the Reds...

A communist calling someone a Nazi is akin to a hog using 'pig' as an insult.

[Bijan]

16 minutes ago, PigFish said:

I tend to find this 'wide divide' distinction between national socialist and communists a bit of a joke.

Disagree. Nazi plans were to kill the Russians or send them to Siberia and take over the land, and maybe enslave some of them.

Soviet communists probably killed more Russians than other eastern Europeans and didn't genocide the native populations to grab land.

USSR despite a few incidents was more tolerant of Jews than (non soviet) Europe of the time.

[99call]

18 minutes ago, PigFish said:

national socialist

Ray, this is so so lazy.  The Nazi's cukooed another party to backdoor their way into power,  that party happened to have 'socialist' in its name.    If that satisfies you, well thats really bloody sad.  

All of the evil empires of history can be authoritarian, that does not qualify it as being socialist or communist by default.   I'm centre left leaning politically, I know the historic evils of the Communism party is a left wing atrocity.      The evils of the Nazi party IS a right wing atrocity.   To suggest anything else is a gross misrepresentation of history, and dangerous. 

it's not about the pathetic current practice of whataboutism, it's history Ray! Right wing people can be evil you know, it's a thing

[joeypots]

34 minutes ago, 99call said:

 

All of the evil empires of history can be authoritarian, that does not qualify it as being socialist or communist by default.   

Never been anything close to socialism in China or the USSR. Totalitarian is the best description of those governments.

[RichG]

Remember when this was about the Ukraine?

Yes, the Nazi party was right wing. Yes mass atrocities were perpetuated by both Nazis and Communists. 

In my opinion, one of main distinctions is that while atrocities certainly have been committed under Communism, it in and of itself it is a socioeconomic ideology that exists apart from the evil of dehumanizing groups of people based on race and other human factors. 

Naziism on the other hand, embraces a hateful and inexcusable ideology as part of its core philosophy. 

So while you may provide comparison between the practical atrocities perpetrated by Communists or Nazis, in my opinion it is wrong to say they are on the same footing. 

The applicable reality to the situation at hand is that Putin has the moral compass of a James Bond villain, and his statements of Ukrainian Naziism are a laughable farce to support his tragically false narrative.

[Jack]

Pardon my lack of ability to focus on the politics.  Now religion though!

Would those more schooled in the religious aspects of why someone named Vlad from Russia would want to possibly regain Kiev - and see himself as another Vlad from Rus Land - care to chime in?

[PigFish]

4 hours ago, Bijan said:

Disagree. Nazi plans were to kill the Russians or send them to Siberia and take over the land, and maybe enslave some of them.

Soviet communists probably killed more Russians than other eastern Europeans and didn't genocide the native populations to grab land.

USSR despite a few incidents was more tolerant of Jews than (non soviet) Europe of the time.

... tell that to the east Germans... Czechs... etc. Where do you think Putin learned about land grabs...? Please read the formation of the Soviet Union.

[Bijan]

4 hours ago, PigFish said:

... tell that to the east Germans... Czechs... etc. Where do you think Putin learned about land grabs...? Please read the formation of the Soviet Union.

The Nazis exterminated 20% of the population of Poland. Which of those was equivalent?

Putin is now complaining that the Bolsheviks were too generous and gave away Ukraine and Crimea. Not saying he is right in any way, but the Bolsheviks were not racist/genocidal nationalists.

[PigFish]

43 minutes ago, 99call said:

Ray, this is so so lazy.  The Nazi's cukooed another party to backdoor their way into power,  that party happened to have 'socialist' in its name.    If that satisfies you, well thats really bloody sad.  

All of the evil empires of history can be authoritarian, that does not qualify it as being socialist or communist by default.   I'm centre left leaning politically, I know the historic evils of the Communism party is a left wing atrocity.      The evils of the Nazi party IS a right wing atrocity.   To suggest anything else is a gross misrepresentation of history, and dangerous. 

it's not about the pathetic current practice of whataboutism, it's history Ray! Right wing people can be evil you know, it's a thing

Revisionist history...

The far right is anarchy, not dictatorship or fascist forms of government where governments pair with industry to meet government needs/requirements. Anarchy does not work either, but Nazi Germany was never about individual liberty, and freedom. It was top down centralized control which is an earmark of both communism and socialism. It had every earmark of a socialist state including government control of labor and wages. Read your history...

Chancellor Hitler's early moves against labor included the GLF, the means by which he banned labor unions and took over control of the county's labor. That is not an earmark of the right, that is not open market, nor capitalist. This was/is a socialist policy.

If it walks like a duck, talk likes a duck and swims like a duck... it is a duck!

[99call]

3 hours ago, PigFish said:

If it walks like a duck, talk likes a duck and swims like a duck... it is a duck!

You just hate what your country has told you to hate....Ray.  Over and over and over again.    It's almost like something you would expect from North Korea

I've got a lot of time for you mate.  But on this I think you're talking absolute horseshit, and not only that,   but incredibly dangerous horseshit. 

.....with all due respect and warmest regards

[BEVOSREVENGE]

20 minutes ago, RichG said:

Remember when this was about the Ukraine?

Thanks @RichG

To everyone else, would appreciate it if the nazi rabbit hole nonsense doesn't get the thread nuked.

[99call]

1 minute ago, BEVOSREVENGE said:

Thanks @RichG

To everyone else, would appreciate it if the nazi rabbit hole nonsense doesn't get the thread nuked.

Yep,  well said, for my own part, I'm back on track

[99call]

I see Putin, has invited Zelenskyy to Belarus for 'talks'.     yeah right Vlad! top trolling

[RichG]

When I read that this morning I was slightly hopeful that it had some thin potential to end the attack. Throughout the day my optimism has waned. I believe I saw a couple of hours ago that Putin issued dismissive marks about these potential negotiations.

Does Putin truly want to absorb the Ukraine in full, or would he be satisfied with concessions that render her in his mind harmless, no NATO, neutrality and disarmament, etc.? Concessions of this nature would essentially be yielding their autonomy to him anyway.