Pro-Nazi Soldiers in German Army Raise Alarm

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ignorant_ape

There is NO ideology on the face of the world, which has come as close to dominating the entire world, as Nazism did.

...

That is a threat like unto NO other threat which the human race has ever faced, a threat whose very purpose was "purifying" the species by way of calculated, deliberate and utterly inhuman levels of barbaric, brutal murder, on an industrial scale.

And yet Communism killed 90-100 million people in the 20th Century. Stalin didn't even bother to create a fake differentiion between "us and them" as the Nazis did, he just had people executed for being in a position to question or resist his policies, such as the "kulaks". In one case he stopped even that minor level of discrimination and just tried to kill off an entire country through the Holodomor.

The Nazis, as terrible and evil as their acts were, don't even equate to a pimple on the arse of the atrocities of communism.

What scares me is that the regime that people are now actively fighting and clamouring for across portions of the west... is communism. That's far more dangerous to the world as a whole than any nonsense about Nazis or Islamic Caliphates.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: EvillerBob
If YOU can think of a better way to mitigate a threat which cannot be reasoned with, does not accept fact, prefers its own propaganda to the realities which defy that propaganda, then have the hell at it. Get your finger out in fact, because this work needs doing.

I've been married for nearly 20 years and still haven't figured her out. It's certainly not going to happen in my lifetime.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Communism and Islam have dominated more of the world than any other ideologies.
I was not speaking of actual Nazis, only those who use it as a label to shut down opposing views.

a reply to: EvillerBob


Communism killed more like forty to fifty million of those people you are talking about, at most. Famine killed the rest. Furthermore, Communism did not have gas chambers, did not build infrastructure for the sole and dedicated purpose of industrial scale slaughter of people. Also, it is worth pointing out, that Hitler had only from 1933 to 1945 to work his particular murder machine. That is twelve years.

Communism killed more people, because it was around for far longer. If Hitler and Nazism had ruled for as long as hardcore Communism did in Russia and China, for example, his tally would have been much larger, because his methods killed in larger numbers per incident, much, MUCH faster. If he had been left to his own devices, the worlds population would have been reduced by a great deal more than 3% during WW2.

originally posted by: 4N0M4LY
Only in germany can a german be labled a nazi for taking a stand against the migrant infestation destroying their way of life and their leaders actively aggrivating the issue. By golly its a genius way to squash any dissent from german citizens when you can label them nazis. Makes things easier

Seems to work pretty well in American too.

Don't like what somebody is saying? Call him a Fascist and a Nazi. Silence ensues...

a reply to: TrueBrit
Is that satire?

Execeuted on sight? No trial? On whose say so? Somebody has to make the judgement, surely.


These are your values laid bare; this is what you are whether you understand it or not. If you truly advocate what you've just said, then you are enemy of justice. One can't say that they have certain values, but then abandon them when the circumstances suit.

Puuuh, i am glad that the US ruled denazification worked that well...

An actual picture of the outside of the Hochstauffen-Kaserne in...who knows it...who knows it...Bueller?
In Bavaria. Something like this happens in Bavaria or the east of Germany.
Btw, till 2012(!!!) the Hochstauffen-Kaserne was named General Konrad-Kaserne. Konrad was a known Nazi war criminal.



As i said, "i am glad" that the denazification of "our" new Führers from the overseas worked that well.
And how good that nobody saw this little artwork over the last decades, because it is "hidden like pirates gold".

I am afraid that we never should be really denazificated, but the former USA infected itself(willfully and knowingly?) with Nazism, via Operation Paperclip. Via helping Nazis, that just had enough money, to get a new name and to hide in the former USA, Heinz Müller became Henry Miller, finished. A lot of the money Hitler and his henchmen needed came from the former USA too, Henry Ford as an well known example.

But noooo, in the occupied by the new Führers from the overseas nation which´s everything(army, secret services, police, "justice", massmedia etc, supervised by the former USAs CIA) was founded by former Nazis, because nobody else was left and almost everybody in an official posts in the third reich was a Nazi(99,99999%), we don´t have problems with Nazis, how even could that ever be possible... ?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: EvillerBob

Communism killed more like forty to fifty million of those people you are talking about, at most. Famine killed the rest.

Oh, only 40-50 million? Well that's alright then, apparently.

Famine killed the rest? That's like saying the people shot by the Nazis weren't killed by the bullets but were killed by the blood loss.

Communism and its bastard lovechild Socialism remains the single biggest threat to the civilised world. Why? Because it's real, it's here, idiots are still clamouring for it, and people are still dying from its impact as we speak.

You can focus on the Nazis if you like, but you might as well expand to stocking up on silver bullets and wooden stakes to fight off all the Werewolves and Vampires who might take over the world. I hear that Venezuala is currently suffering from a severe infestation of Vampires. No, wait, sorry, apparently it's just socialism, we better leave them to it. Good thing the people being killed at the protests are being shot by good ol' Socialists, not Nazis, otherwise the entire world could be at risk!

If you read the definition of Fascism, it sounds like they are describing Socialism.

My opinion is that Facsism isn't really a political ideology, it was an ideological movement of the early 20th century and has literally no bearing on modern politics, other than as a boogy man.

I resent it being classed as "far-right". Can anyone provide any other examples of "far-right" ideology so that I can compare and contrast?

The reason Facism was and always has been classed as "far-right" was because it was so opposed to the "far-left". There isn't a whole lot of difference between the methods of control of "far-left" collectivism and Fascism.

It would seem to me that there should be a gradual decline towards racist attitudes if the "far-right" is defined as being racist at it's core. In reality, racism tends to exist in all extremist cultures and ideologies, both "left" and "right".

The way I see the left-right dichotomy is collectivism - individualism.

The only "far-right" ideology I can truthfully describe as being ideologically "far-right" is the good ol' US of A Republic after gaining independence and decentralising government and handing far more power into the hands of the people, rather than in the hands of government.

If you go much further to the right, you end up with an Anarchy, but I'm not an anarchist as I believe there will always be a need for a government of some description. Yes, there will always be someone to build roads, but would you like to cross 30 private roads to get from one end of your town to the other, or is it better to have a central body that we all fund together to oversee the creation of things that everyone needs and noone wants to have to pay for with every use.

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

If you read the definition of Fascism, it sounds like they are describing Socialism.

That may because you don't understand the definition of socialism.

My opinion is that Facsism isn't really a political ideology, it was an ideological movement of the early 20th century and has literally no bearing on modern politics, other than as a boogy man.

It is a very real ideology, and it is being practiced all over the world today. Russia, Singapore, North Korea, just to name a few.

I resent it being classed as "far-right". Can anyone provide any other examples of "far-right" ideology so that I can compare and contrast?

Monarchism. The King rules by divine right. His authority is absolute. The will of the people does not matter; they exist to serve the Crown. Nazism. The Leader's power is absolute, and derives from the historical imperative of the race. The Korean chaebol system, although they have been liberalizing in recent years.

The reason Facism was and always has been classed as "far-right" was because it was so opposed to the "far-left". There isn't a whole lot of difference between the methods of control of "far-left" collectivism and Fascism.

Just as there is little difference between Fascism, proper, and the far right ways of imposing its centralized rule.

It would seem to me that there should be a gradual decline towards racist attitudes if the "far-right" is defined as being racist at it's core. In reality, racism tends to exist in all extremist cultures and ideologies, both "left" and "right".

But is is often fundamental to the far right's ideology. Communists like Stalin happened to be Anti-Semites. Nazism was founded on Anti-Semitism.

The way I see the left-right dichotomy is collectivism - individualism.

It is whether power is wielded collectively by democratic institutions, or emanates from a single leader. Democracy is on the left (collective exercise of power), Fascism on the right (the "Leader Principle).

The only "far-right" ideology I can truthfully describe as being ideologically "far-right" is the good ol' US of A Republic after gaining independence and decentralising government and handing far more power into the hands of the people, rather than in the hands of government.

Exactly wrong. Monarchy is the traditional far right form of government. The authority of the government does not arise from the will of the people. Initially, the United States was intended to be a liberal, ie; leftist republic. With the centralization of the Federal government, it has steadily been moving to the right.

If you go much further to the right, you end up with an Anarchy, but I'm not an anarchist as I believe there will always be a need for a government of some description. Yes, there will always be someone to build roads, but would you like to cross 30 private roads to get from one end of your town to the other, or is it better to have a central body that we all fund together to oversee the creation of things that everyone needs and noone wants to have to pay for with every use

Anarchy is what happens when everyone claims their own personal sovereignty. Sovereignty is a characteristic of society as a whole, not the individual.

a reply to: jafo1973

Years and years ago I heard a story, a brit was being shown around a West German Laager on a joint exercise. The German was dead proud of his new Leopard tanks and spent ages pointing out the wide tracks and deep hulls of the beasts " Next time we go East, we won't be getting stuck in the mud on the Steppe."


Don't think we need worry too much though, if you are German, especially a tanker, you are going to take pride in the old Wehrmacht doctrine of armoured warfare.

a reply to: EvillerBob

While the actions of people like Stalin and Mao should be called out for what they are, atrocities of the highest level, they are also not endemic of Communism as a philosophy. Nowhere in the Communist Manifesto does it state that leaders should execute millions of citizens.

On the other hand, Nazism is founded on the concept of racial superiority.

Under ideal conditions Communism is arguably the greatest form of government. Under ideal conditions Nazism still leads to genocide.

That's why a resurgence of Nazism should be considered a bigger threat. Benevolent Communism can exist. Benevolent Nazism cannot.

There are many neo-nazi's here in Europe and it's numbers are increasing rapidly. This was already happening way before the immigrant crisis. I'm sure it is boosting it even more, but a different cause lies at the heart of the renewed rise of nazism in Europe. It is something we are all well aware of here on ATS.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: EvillerBob


Communism killed more like forty to fifty million of those people you are talking about, at most. Famine killed the rest. Furthermore, Communism did not have gas chambers, did not build infrastructure for the sole and dedicated purpose of industrial scale slaughter of people. Also, it is worth pointing out, that Hitler had only from 1933 to 1945 to work his particular murder machine. That is twelve years.

Communism killed more people, because it was around for far longer. If Hitler and Nazism had ruled for as long as hardcore Communism did in Russia and China, for example, his tally would have been much larger, because his methods killed in larger numbers per incident, much, MUCH faster. If he had been left to his own devices, the worlds population would have been reduced by a great deal more than 3% during WW2.

Your silly Stalin made Hitler look like a boy scout. He had over 700,000 shot estimates of 15 million imprisoned 3.3 million deported. And starved over 6 million with his policies. And this doesnt count places like Ukraine and poland. Stalin killed more polls than the Nazis. In fact the Nazis actually found mass graves in poland.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: EvillerBob

While the actions of people like Stalin and Mao should be called out for what they are, atrocities of the highest level, they are also not endemic of Communism as a philosophy. Nowhere in the Communist Manifesto does it state that leaders should execute millions of citizens.

On the other hand, Nazism is founded on the concept of racial superiority.

Under ideal conditions Communism is arguably the greatest form of government. Under ideal conditions Nazism still leads to genocide.

That's why a resurgence of Nazism should be considered a bigger threat. Benevolent Communism can exist. Benevolent Nazism cannot.

Yet, amazingly, Communism always seems to end up with lots of dead people. You would think that with all the decades and decades of practice, finally someone might have got it right. Or perhaps it's just fundamentally flawed.

Benevolent Communism cannot exist. It starts from the principle of theft and destruction, and can only survive by continually crushing the human spirit's desire to become more than it is.

Benevolent Nazism is actually more realistic than Benevolent Communism: with only 7 billion people on the planet the Nazis would eventually run out of people to kill, while Communism can only work by destroying the spark of individuality that defines humanity, and keep it suppressed for the rest of all time.

To paraphrase a well-known book: if you want a vision of Benevolent Communism, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: jafo1973

Pro-Nazis in any military force should be executed immediately, shot on sight, no trial, no nothing. Even the slightest TWINGE of far right about a person, ought to bar them from ever being permitted to piss unsupervised, leave alone carry a gun as a profession.

There is only one organisation, idealism, one notion that has ever been enough of a threat to warrant such a violent intolerance, and that is the Nazi ideal, the far right. It must be crushed wherever it can be found. Obliterated, stamped on, the very concept and its every adherent eviscerated and brutalised until it either ceases to exist, or the thought of voicing, or acting upon any far right thinking, becomes more terrifying than whatever phobia that thinking issues from in the first place.

It is the only thing on Earth which cannot be tolerated, especially by reasonable people.

You have all the answers don't you.
Put down the bottle for three minutes and ponder why shooting persons on sight is any different than fascism? Pathetic. Brutalized, wherever found lol. You are virtue signalling 24/7 and it is getting pretty strained. Read your post again, sober if you can. Have you joined antifa yet? Someone had to tell you.

You should learn history. Start with Red October, proceed to the Holodomor. Maybe check out the father of zionism Ted Hertzel and his activities in Turkey abetting the slaughter of Christians with some pimp shiek, so the jews could flip a homeland there. This crap went on for hundreds of years, ie., the ottoman empire. The telegraph lay silent then, I wonder why. Totalitarianism is totalitarianism, period. Thanks for the tipoff, by the way.


You sound like antifa, but then, you're 'different'. You bang on about it endlessly.
As usual you are wrong.

# 773

a reply to: TrueBrit

That's reasonable??

Really??

Not so much.

a reply to: Robert Reynolds

Justice? You speak of justice, but I do not think you know what it means.

Justice being done looks like a world where people learned the lessons of the second world war, and vowed never to permit Nazism in their midst again, because of the danger it posed to the rest of the species. But as per usual, you have some dirty, Neville Chamberlainesque appeasers around here, trying to equate the termination of Nazis with Nazism itself. Nothing stands in the way of justice like a lack of conviction.

I believe that in general terms, people ought to let people live their lives, have their beliefs, be whatever they want to be, be from wherever they are from, worship whatever they worship, without interference. I also believe that those who are unprepared to permit that, are enemies of the species, a threat to its future, and I have always believed that. I have never stated differently on this website or anywhere else. A threat to this species as a whole, cannot be tolerated, no matter how well meaning or accepting one happens to be.

I am all for nuance, a great fan of contrast. But there is one matter in this world which can afford no grey areas, one matter upon which there is no fence, there is only a choice, whether to support or destroy Nazism. And for the record, your ability to understand my values in context, means nothing what so ever. If you cannot understand that I have genuinely held values and beliefs, AS WELL as being fundamentally opposed to the existence of the far right on any continent, for any reason, then that is your failure. I can assure you, that this concept is not at all foreign to my ancestors, which is one of the reasons we have the freedom to have this discussion at all.

originally posted by: TrueBrit

I am all for nuance, a great fan of contrast. But there is one matter in this world which can afford no grey areas, one matter upon which there is no fence, there is only a choice, whether to support or destroy Nazism.

Say we accept that all Nazis must be destroyed. Who gets to decide who is a Nazi? After all, we've already had a few people in the thread identify you as aligning with Nazi ideology. Are you going to turn yourself over to the authorities? Or will you declare yourself as arbiter of who gets to die in your proposed cleansing?

How about the screaming antifa hordes, declaring anyone who opposes them to be Nazis? Should we let them decide?

A rather fitting quote, both in context and author, would be:

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."

You're gazing a bit too deeply in that abyss, my friend.

a reply to: EvillerBob

I am making sure to provide balance. The further the adversary approaches the seat of power, the more extreme and overt their actions and announcements are, the further to the left I will stand, because if I do not, if others like me do not, then the narrative will become one sided, and the Nazis will rise again.

There MUST be a counterpoint, there MUST be opposition as determined and solid as the threat, else wise it wins.