Jorg Haider is Dead [Archive]

Oleander Ardens

10-11-2008, 07:39

Any possibility that he was murdered by Strache's guys? It sounds crazy, but it seems like they are trying to re-enact a miniature Nazi accension, I wouldn't expect them to leave out the Night of the Long Knives.

Baseless rumor that I just came up with putting two and two together. Spread it around.

If I were the police, I would investigate this further. Haider was the more moderate voice of the Freedom party and recently ousted as leader by Strache. If I were a closet Nazi I would totally kill the recent competition once I got to the top.

Frankly if you paint both as miniature Nazis than Mr. Bush would be with no shade of doubt a fascist agressor - and I have ever been an adamant opponent of their political agenda. That people come up with "nazi" every time a right-winged politician in the german-speaking world has success is indeed or a sign of stark lack in education and knowledge or of bad taste. Said that I really hope that Strache won't be able to collect the voters of Haider in the future - a vain hope I presume.

Fragony

10-11-2008, 08:10

come to think of it, no.

Koga No Goshi

10-11-2008, 09:17

What's a Jorg Haider? :)

HoreTore

10-11-2008, 09:21

On a political level, I'm very happy that he's gone.

Of course, retirement would've been a much better way....

Louis VI the Fat

10-11-2008, 12:43

Org policy requests us not to make political statements about the recently deceased. I shall therefore simply give centre stage to our Austrian Freedom politician himself:

'WWII concentration camps are only punishment camps'
'The SS is a part of the German army that should be honoured'
'The 'expulsion' of the Jews by the Nazis is comparable to the expulsion of the Germans from Sudetenland'

Auf Wiedersehen, Jörg. ~:wave:

And indeed, by the standards of the Austrian far right Haider was still only a moderate, and a great hero to the hard-right, anti-EU, nationalist sentiment across Europe.

Fragony

10-11-2008, 13:28

Hmmmm.

Tribesman

10-11-2008, 13:44

What's a Jorg Haider ?
Its what you get when you breed from an S.A.stormtrooper and a female Hitler youth leader .

KukriKhan

10-11-2008, 13:44

JR-

10-11-2008, 15:47

it is a shame he is gone from politics, because parties like his that effected the will of the electorate did more than anything to shine a spotlight on the poisonous conformist and PC nature of european politics.

Kadagar_AV

10-11-2008, 15:57

I did not vote for him in the last election, but he has my respect. At least he always told the truth as it was. I am sad he is gone, as he really made this country more aware of political issues.

RIP

:austria:

Fragony

10-11-2008, 16:04

Louis VI the Fat

10-11-2008, 17:55

If what Luigi posted actually came from his mouth then we really don't need it, political correctness disgusts me but glorifying nazi's disgust me a whole lot more. Racism is an ugly thing that should never get in the way of the discussion we should be having.I am unsure about whether to leave his politics for a few days or not. Then again, each man chooses his own actions and words. And we remember them at his death:

Born in the Upper Austrian town of Bad Goisern in 1950, Joerg Haider's parents were very early members of the Nazi party, who moved to Germany where they became party officials. Critics say Haider's views were shaped by this background, although he said his family seldom discussed the past.

Around the same time he became party leader, Haider inherited a controversial $16m estate in the southern province of Carinthia where he became governor in 1989. Barental, or Bear Valley, was bought during World War II by his great uncle from an Italian Jew who fled in 1940. Critics say the sale was illegitimately forced upon the Jewish owner by the Nazis, but Haider consistently denied this.

He amassed a formidable power base in Carinthia, but his first stint as governor in 1989 ended abruptly when he praised the employment policies of Nazi Germany and was forced to resign. He was re-elected, however, in 1999 and 2003.

Haider gained notoriety for his pro-Nazi comments. He described World War II concentration camps as "punishment camps" and said the Nazi SS was "a part of the German army which should be honoured".
He also compared the deportation of Jews by the Nazis to the expulsion of Sudeten Germans from Czechoslovakia after the war. No leftist blog. Just the obituary on the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7664852.stm).

Crazed Rabbit

10-11-2008, 18:03

Louis has said what needs saying.

n 2000, the EU imposed sanctions against Austria in a protest over his party's role in government.

?!?!

CR

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-11-2008, 18:12

Org policy requests us not to make political statements about the recently deceased. I shall therefore simply give centre stage to our Austrian Freedom politician himself:

'WWII concentration camps are only punishment camps'
'The SS is a part of the German army that should be honoured'
'The 'expulsion' of the Jews by the Nazis is comparable to the expulsion of the Germans from Sudetenland'

Or perhaps you could look at his actual policies instead of words, some of which were said almost twenty years ago? Sorry Louis, but the man is no neo-Nazi, no matter how hard you try to paint him as one.

PanzerJaeger

10-11-2008, 19:54

'WWII concentration camps are only punishment camps'

This is true. They certainly weren't sent there as a reward.

'The SS is a part of the German army that should be honoured'

This is true. The line drawn by the allies between the German Army and the SS is false. They were all German fighting men. There were honorable soldiers in both the Wehrmacht and the SS, as well as dishonorable ones.

'The 'expulsion' of the Jews by the Nazis is comparable to the expulsion of the Germans from Sudetenland'.

While the scale is much smaller, this is also fairly accurate. Thousands of Germans died in vicious state sponsored murders and concentration camps and it is hard to say the expulsion was not an ethnic cleansing.

Now then, were those three quotes smart things to say for a public figure? Of course not. I believe he apologized.

However, Louis, you must know that having family directly involved in a conflict can make it easier for one to see both sides. I certainly can see the German side of WW2. Most people - rightly or wrongly - refuse to look at the war from both perspectives. When your parents, or grandparents in my case, fought in it, you kind of have to.

Another example: Living in the South, most people understand where the leaders and soldiers of the Confederacy were coming from. Living in America, most people understand why Truman dropped the atomic bomb. However, I'm sure if you were to interview the family of former slaves or a resident of Nagasaki, their perspectives would be different.

My point is that Haider was in a unique position and I can understand why his perspective on the war was also unique. Condemning the man for three comments made over the course of several decades is probably not the best idea, especially considering that the political parties he headed were far from national socialist in nature.

KarlXII

10-11-2008, 20:05

This is true. They certainly weren't sent there as a reward.

"Punishment camps" seem to be more of an understatement, however.

This is true. The line drawn by the allies between the German Army and the SS is false. They were all German fighting men. There were honorable soldiers in both the Wehrmacht and the SS, as well as dishonorable ones.

The SS was responsible for many of the atrocities committed, and I hope you don't deny that. SS-Totenkopfverbände. The Einsatzgruppen, the death squads, that went out exclusively to kill undesirables. The SS was more of the political arm of the Wermacht, it's recruits, if I recall, had to be of Aryan descent, and pledge loyalty to the Nazi Party. Many of it's officers were well known Nazis.

While the scale is much smaller, this is also fairly accurate. Thousands of Germans died in vicious state sponsored murders and concentration camps and it is hard to say the expulsion was not an ethnic cleansing.

More of a revenge by the Soviets. And I cannot blame them. But trying to compare the Holocaust to this is plain silly.

However, Louis, you must know that having family directly involved in a conflict can make it easier for one to see both sides. I certainly can see the German side of WW2. Most people - rightly or wrongly - refuse to look at the war from both perspectives. When your parents, or grandparents in my case, fought in it, you kind of have to.

I also had grandparents who fought, both against the Soviets and Germans.

Crazed Rabbit

10-11-2008, 20:10

This is true. They certainly weren't sent there as a reward.

No, it's false. He said they were only punishment camps.

CR

ICantSpellDawg

10-11-2008, 20:13

The SS was responsible for many of the atrocities committed, and I hope you don't deny that. SS-Totenkopfverbände. The Einsatzgruppen, the death squads, that went out exclusively to kill undesirables. The SS was more of the political arm of the Wermacht, it's recruits, if I recall, had to be of Aryan descent, and pledge loyalty to the Nazi Party. Many of it's officers were well known Nazis.

If you understood the SS-Totenkopfverbande you would know that it had a totally separate hierarchy from the Waffen-SS. The Oberkommando der Wehrmacht controlled the Waffen-SS, while the Nazi-party controlled the Totenkopfverband and Einsatzgruppen. The Waffen-SS was like the Marines and rarely engaged in the actual purges as the wehrmacht was against such things. Regular wehrmacht troops also engaged in purges to an extent, yet they are honored for their heroism. Waffen-SS sacrifice and heroism was amazing during world war two and, while they were part of an unacceptably de-humanizing war machine which deserves it's infamous title, they are often mis-judged by what the SS-Totenkopfverbande, Allgemiene-SS and Einsatzgruppen were directly responsible for - three authoritatively separate branches of the government that were directly answerable to the NSDAP rather than the O.d.W.

PanzerJaeger

10-11-2008, 20:22

No, it's false. He said they were only punishment camps.

CR

What is false about that?

KarlXII

10-11-2008, 20:28

If you understood the SS-Totenkopfverbande you would know that it had a totally separate hierarchy from the Waffen-SS. The Oberkommando der Wehrmacht controlled the Waffen-SS, while the Nazi-party controlled the Totenkopfverband and Einsatzgruppen. The Waffen-SS was like the Marines and rarelly engaged in the actual purges as the wehrmacht was against such things. Regular wehrmacht troops also engaged in purges to an extent, yet they are honored for their heroism. Waffen-SS heroism was amazing during world war two and, while they were part of an unacceptably de-humanizing war machine which deserves it's infamous title, they are often mis-judged by what the SS-Totenkopfverbande, Allgemiene-SS and Einsatzgruppen were directly responsible for - three authoritatively separate branches of the government.

The Waffen-SS were involved with war crimes. EVen under Wermacht control. 29th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS RONA, a Waffen-SS unit killed 150 Canadian prisoners, 36th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (It's ranks were filled with common criminals).

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-einz-42.htm

Were all Waffen-SS members war criminals? No, some were even conscripts. The Allies decision to name the SS a criminal organization was right, because much of it was. Honor divisions like Wiking, not Totenkopfverbande.

ICantSpellDawg

10-11-2008, 20:33

Honor divisions like Wiking, not Totenkopfverbande.

Oh absolutely - I agree. The Totenkopfverbande and Allgemaine SS should be humiliated for their horrors forever. Waffen-SS groups who never had anything to do with purges and most likely had no idea they were going on should be honored like we honor U.S. Marines today for their sacrifice and heroism. They gave their lives to defend a Germany that they believed was right and good, even though at that point it wasn't.

PanzerJaeger

10-11-2008, 20:33

"Punishment camps" seem to be more of an understatement, however.

It wasn't the best way to put it, but it is technically true and not automatically pro-nazi.

The SS was responsible for many of the atrocities committed, and I hope you don't deny that. SS-Totenkopfverbände. The Einsatzgruppen, the death squads, that went out exclusively to kill undesirables. The SS was more of the political arm of the Wermacht, it's recruits, if I recall, had to be of Aryan descent, and pledge loyalty to the Nazi Party. Many of it's officers were well known Nazis.

Tuff made good points. There were many honorable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittman) SS soldiers.

More of a revenge by the Soviets. And I cannot blame them. But trying to compare the Holocaust to this is plain silly.

Not sure how that is silly. It was a state sponsored ethnic cleansing like any other.

KarlXII

10-11-2008, 20:38

Not sure how that is silly. It was a state sponsored ethnic cleansing like any other.

So the Holocaust didn't kill about 6 million undesirables? Or is it OK, because those damned Commies got the superior Germans?

Kadagar_AV

10-11-2008, 20:40

I am in awe of the waffen-SS combat abilities...

And as others have pointed out, they have a very underserved bad name. The allies were severely afraid of the SS combat abilities, and rightfully so, since they often won against overwhelming odds.

Crazed Rabbit

10-11-2008, 20:42

What is false about that?

They were death camps. Or are you saying death was simply a 'punishment'?

CR

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-11-2008, 20:46

So the Holocaust didn't kill about 6 million undesirables? Or is it OK, because those damned Commies got the superior Germans?

How did you get that out of his post? They were both state sponsored ethnic cleansings. Saying that the expulsion of the Germans was ethnic cleansing doesn't mean that you're a Holocaust denier. :dizzy2:

KarlXII

10-11-2008, 20:50

How did you get that out of his post? They were both state sponsored ethnic cleansings. Saying that the expulsion of the Germans was ethnic cleansing doesn't mean that you're a Holocaust denier. :dizzy2:

It doesn't mean they're comparable. Or justifiable. Somehow, I take it from Good Ol' Jorg's statement that the Holocaust is somehow alright because them Reds killed Germans. Nevermind the fact the Germans also killed Russians, French, Italians, Jews, Gypsies, Brits, Norwegians, Hungarians, Greeks, Romanians, Finns, Danes, etc.

PanzerJaeger

10-11-2008, 20:52

So the Holocaust didn't kill about 6 million undesirables? Or is it OK, because those damned Commies got the superior Germans?

No I think you misunderstand me. I'm saying that both were instances of ethnic cleansing. The scale of the Holocaust was larger, but both involved state sanctioned murder and concentration camps.

They were death camps. Or are you saying death was simply a 'punishment'?

Death is a punishment in the US, how would it be anything else in Nazi Germany?

In any event, concentration camps were not the same as death camps - according to Jewish scholars anyway.

I'm also having trouble finding where Haider said the camps were "only" punishment camps. Neither wiki nor its source includes "only".

KarlXII

10-11-2008, 20:53

In any event, concentration camps were not the same as death camps - according to Jewish scholars anyway.

Yep. 'Dem Jews alright.

ICantSpellDawg

10-11-2008, 20:57

No I think you misunderstand me. I'm saying that both were instances of ethnic cleansing. The scale of the Holocaust was larger, but both involved state sanctioned murder and concentration camps.

Death is a punishment in the US, how would it be anything else in Nazi Germany?

In any event, concentration camps were not the same as death camps - according to Jewish scholars anyway.

Right. Not all camps were death camps. Many were just de-humanising work camps without the ovens or gas chambers.

I don't believe that Haider was saying the Holocaust was somehow diminished because of the german purges after the war - I think he was saying that, although the holocaust was massively more devastating that the ethnic cleansing of germans, the murderous ethnic cleansing of Germans was de-humanising and unjustifiable itself.

KarlXII

10-11-2008, 21:04

'The 'expulsion' of the Jews by the Nazis is comparable to the expulsion of the Germans from Sudetenland'.

Lol.

ICantSpellDawg

10-11-2008, 21:07

Lol.

Are psychotically genocidal campaigns comparable? Yes. Are they comparable in scope? No.

PanzerJaeger

10-11-2008, 21:07

I don't believe that Haider was saying the Holocaust was somehow diminished because of the german purges after the war - I think he was saying that, although the holocaust was massively more devastating that the ethnic cleansing of germans, the murderous ethnic cleansing of Germans was de-humanising and unjustifiable itself.

Yes. There's still a lot of resentment on both sides about the expulsions, and of course it is easy to make comparisons like that. That doesn't mean Haider was diminishing the Holocaust.

Viking

10-11-2008, 21:20

This is true. They certainly weren't sent there as a reward.

[...]That doesn't mean Haider was diminishing the Holocaust.

LOL?

"Oh, it's true that the consentration camps were horrible, but they were only punishment camps. Why I am saying this? Well...it's true!"

:2thumbsup:

I guess, he was some sort of Captain Obvious.

ICantSpellDawg

10-11-2008, 21:24

PanzerJaeger

10-11-2008, 21:50

LOL?

"Oh, it's true that the consentration camps were horrible, but they were only punishment camps. Why I am saying this? Well...it's true!"

:2thumbsup:

I guess, he was some sort of Captain Obvious.

The exact quote, made in a debate in the Austrian parliament on bomb attacks on Romanies, was:

'the punishment camps of National Socialism'

To which he later said that he meant to say "concentration camps".

As usual, a big fuss made over something as small as a passing reference.

Viking

10-11-2008, 22:11

The exact quote, made in a debate in the Austrian parliament on bomb attacks on Romanies, was:

'the punishment camps of National Socialism'

To which he later said that he meant to say "concentration camps".

As usual, a big fuss made over something as small as a passing reference.

That puts it in a different light; though his selection of words more than hints at an underlying attitude.

EDIT: No wait..what the hell am I saying? The concentration camps were certainly not punishment camps. A punishment is what you get when you've done something "wrong"; and what the Jews did wrong was being Jews. There is of course the thing with relativity; but in the modern Western sense, a punishment camp is somewhere criminals are sent; not someone with the "wrong" ethnic background; which was what these camps were largely used for anyway. It so incredibly clearly hints toward the real opinions of this guy.

Alexander the Pretty Good

10-11-2008, 23:00

Neither the Waffen-SS nor the Whermacht should be honored at all. Both committed atrocities - naturally so as they were institutions in a regime that condone and conducted atrocities on a horrific scale.

That the Waffen-SS fought harder is slightly more damning in my mind - their fanaticism in defense of a truly evil system is inexcusable.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-11-2008, 23:13

Neither the Waffen-SS nor the Whermacht should be honored at all. Both committed atrocities - naturally so as they were institutions in a regime that condone and conducted atrocities on a horrific scale.

The RAF and USAAF also committed atrocities, as well as the Red Army. We shouldn't honour them either, by this logic.

Alexander the Pretty Good

10-11-2008, 23:28

I don't necessarily disagree with that. All served primarily to defend the interests of their respective states.

Crazed Rabbit

10-11-2008, 23:37

The RAF and USAAF also committed atrocities, as well as the Red Army. We shouldn't honour them either, by this logic.

They did not do them in service of a greater evil against mankind.

Death is a punishment in the US, how would it be anything else in Nazi Germany?

You'll have to point out where the government has killed people for being Jewish.

CR

ICantSpellDawg

10-11-2008, 23:54

I don't think Americans should honor the Waffen-SS or Wehrmacht, but Germans and Austrians should be able to. It was their fathers and grandfathers who gave up their lives for their country.

Crazed Rabbit

10-11-2008, 23:55

So? That doesn't make it right.

CR

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-12-2008, 00:09

So? That doesn't make it right.

CR

What is wrong with honouring our ancestors, who fought and, in many cases, died in the war? They didn't fight for the Nazi government, they fought for the country, or because they were conscripted. You cannot paint the Wehrmacht as an organization of war criminals any more than you can paint the USAAF as one.

We have the same right to honour our veterans as you have to honour yours, even though our veterans were on the "wrong" side.

ICantSpellDawg

10-12-2008, 00:12

So? That doesn't make it right.

CR

What do you mean? Hypothetical: If my brother gave up his life to defend my father who was an abusive drunk murderer, I would honor my brothers sacrifice. I would blame my father even more for causing his death, but the one who sacrificed was doing what he thought was right out of honor.

It would be even more sad that my brother died to protect a scumbag.

KarlXII

10-12-2008, 00:23

Strike For The South

10-12-2008, 00:30

All that matters is America won. If the Germans or French or Brits want to be proud let them. The Americans Russians and Chinese are busy fighting over the world :2thumbsup:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-12-2008, 01:13

Wermacht should be honored as the force it was. The SS, however, as I stated again, the divisions (Such as Wiking) that's sole duty was to fight should be honored for their committment and fighting ability, however, those who were involved with the war crimes need to no further mention for their atrocities. Alexander- the pilot who bombed Dresden was following orders, as was the Panzer Grenadier who was at the Seelow Heights. Both need to be remembered and honored for their fighting ability and bravery. To paint them due to their superiors actions is stupid.

I would largely agree with this post.

Alexander the Pretty Good

10-12-2008, 01:36

What is wrong with honouring our ancestors, who fought and, in many cases, died in the war? They didn't fight for the Nazi government, they fought for the country, or because they were conscripted. You cannot paint the Wehrmacht as an organization of war criminals any more than you can paint the USAAF as one.
When your country is run by Nazis, serving your country is tantamount to serving them. If no one volunteered to invade Poland...

What do you mean? Hypothetical: If my brother gave up his life to defend my father who was an abusive drunk murderer, I would honor my brothers sacrifice. I would blame my father even more for causing his death, but the one who sacrificed was doing what he thought was right out of honor.
That's not a very clear scenario to me, but if your brother was protecting your father while he was out murdering, he would have been convicted as an accessory if he lived.

It would be even more sad that my brother died to protect a scumbag.
Amen.

Wermacht should be honored as the force it was. The SS, however, as I stated again, the divisions (Such as Wiking) that's sole duty was to fight should be honored for their committment and fighting ability, however, those who were involved with the war crimes need to no further mention for their atrocities. Alexander- the pilot who bombed Dresden was following orders, as was the Panzer Grenadier who was at the Seelow Heights. Both need to be remembered and honored for their fighting ability and bravery. To paint them due to their superiors actions is stupid.
The Whermacht was a force not only with specific war crimes and atrocities on its record, but also one supporting an even ghastlier system. The pilot who bombed Dresden might not have connected the dots between his orders and the thousands of civilian causalties, but still should have rejected them.

We know that there is no such thing as "following orders" - that's one of the rationales at work at Neuremburg!

Crazed Rabbit

10-12-2008, 01:39

PanzerJaeger

10-12-2008, 01:42

That puts it in a different light; though his selection of words more than hints at an underlying attitude.

EDIT: No wait..what the hell am I saying? The concentration camps were certainly not punishment camps. A punishment is what you get when you've done something "wrong"; and what the Jews did wrong was being Jews. There is of course the thing with relativity; but in the modern Western sense, a punishment camp is somewhere criminals are sent; not someone with the "wrong" ethnic background; which was what these camps were largely used for anyway. It so incredibly clearly hints toward the real opinions of this guy.

Punishment does not impart guilt. I could punish you for something you did not do. Describing the camps as "punishment camps" is accurate.

Besides, as I highlighted, this was simply a passing reference during a debate. It is not as if the man gave a speech about it.

You'll have to point out where the government has killed people for being Jewish.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The Jews were sent to the camps to be punished. One of those punishments was death. Therefore, Haider was not factually incorrect. You were.

Aside from that, I'm still having a hard time finding where he used the phrase "only punishment camps". "Only" would give some credence to the argument that he was in fact trying to downplay what happened there, although that would still be a weak argument.

PanzerJaeger

10-12-2008, 01:51

Honoring those ancestors is different from honoring the Wehrmact. The Wehrmact fought to defend Nazi Germany, and every minute they held their ground was one more minute the concentration camps were killing people.

CR

I wonder if you would apply that same rationale to the US military, which has certainly enabled many attrocities to be committed by the US government.

It's important to realize that none of the major armed forces were completely honorable during the war. That doesn't mean we cannot honor the individuals that were. Among them were SS soldiers.

Crazed Rabbit

10-12-2008, 02:11

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The Jews were sent to the camps to be punished. One of those punishments was death. Therefore, Haider was not factually incorrect. You were.

Oh, I'm sorry, I live in some alternate reality where an actual legal system of just punishment for crimes is not compared to death camps for ethnic cleansing.

I wonder if you would apply that same rationale to the US military, which has certainly enabled many attrocities to be committed by the US government.

No, because the US government is not an evil entity, a force against humanity. The Nazis were an abomination, and I hate them (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t101rO7WuAM&feature=related).

CR

Alexander the Pretty Good

10-12-2008, 02:43

I wonder if you would apply that same rationale to the US military, which has certainly enabled many attrocities to be committed by the US government.
Agreed.

PanzerJaeger

10-12-2008, 03:06

Oh, I'm sorry, I live in some alternate reality where an actual legal system of just punishment for crimes is not compared to death camps for ethnic cleansing.

You're deflecting.

I said that describing the camps as punishment camps was a true statement.

You said that the statement was false because they were also death camps.

I explained that death was one punishment Jews were forced to endure. Therefore, the description was accurate.

Whether the Jews deserved to be punished has no bearing on the description, and no one is making that argument - or comparing legal systems. To describe the camps as "punishment camps" in no way discounts what the Jews experienced; and is, in fact, more severe than the term "concentration".

No, because the US government is not an evil entity, a force against humanity.

Ask a Native American about that.. or the citizenry of any number of South American nations.

To apply descriptors such as "good" and "evil" to entire governments is fundamentally immature and almost always indefensible when taken apart. Governments, by nature, are amoral constructs. The US government and the Nazi government were alike in that they were both concerned first and foremost with furthering their own interests.

"Evil" is more appropriately used to describe individuals, and there were many Nazis that would fit that description. No one thinks otherwise.

The Nazis were an abomination, and I hate them (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t101rO7WuAM&feature=related).

Good to know, but don't let your emotions cloud your ability to come to logical conclusions.

Husar

10-12-2008, 03:21

I would like to point out that many Nazis nowadays also hide their nazism behind less drastic speeches and policies so that they are not touchable by any bans and can avoid prosecution since nazi parties aren't really allowed here(and possibly not in Austria either).

That he called concentration camps punishment camps can be one of two things IMO:

1. He made an honest mistake, used a wrong word to avoid a pause

2. He incidentally said what he really thinks and later corrected it to a more PC version to avoid further problems

The problem I have with calling them punishment camps is that punishment to me means that you did something wrong before you get punished, being born hardly qualifies for me. Basically all of the criteria that made someone "deserve" punishment according to the nazi party were and are only shared by nazis which disqualifies these camps from being called punishment camps in my opinion because they weren't about punishment by any sane standard.

Koga No Goshi

10-12-2008, 03:27

Ask a Native American about that.. or the citizenry of any number of South American nations.

To apply descriptors such as "good" and "evil" to entire governments is fundamentally immature and almost always indefensible when taken apart. Governments, by nature, are amoral constructs. The US government and the Nazi government were alike in that they were both concerned first and foremost with furthering their own interests.

"Evil" is more appropriately used to describe individuals, and there were many Nazis that would fit that description. No one thinks otherwise.

Holy... crap. I find myself agreeing with something Panzer is saying. It figures it would take something so wildly out there as honoring Nazi soldiers' service for this fate to come to pass!

ICantSpellDawg

10-12-2008, 03:38

Holy... crap. I find myself agreeing with something Panzer is saying. It figures it would take something so wildly out there as honoring Nazi soldiers' service for this fate to come to pass!
Good.

People have been making too much of PJ's posts lately. I understand where he is coming from. Usually it is a misunderstanding of the Third Reich that leads people to believe that hell opened up on earth and demons took over the bodies of the entire German populace. They forget that honorable German men, women and Children died in the war - ones who didn't live near death camps and honestly had no idea that their government was slaughtering "undesirables" en masse. Who would believe that about their government especially when the governments main policy was to lie to the German people and keep any racial decisions tightly classified?

In order to understand humanity better we would be well served to learn the right lessons from WW2.

Koga No Goshi

10-12-2008, 03:42

Good.

People have been making too much of PJ's posts lately. I understand where he is coming from. Usually it is a misunderstanding of the Third Reich that leads people to believe that hell opened up on earth and demons took over the bodies of the entire German populace. They forget that honorable German men, women and Children died in the war - ones who didn't live near death camps and honestly had no idea that their government was slaughtering "undesirables" en masse. Who would believe that about their government especially when the governments main policy was to lie to the German people and keep any racial decisions tightly classified?

In order to understand humanity better we would be well served to learn the right lessons from WW2.

People have learned nothing. People think the lesson from WWII is speak in awed terms about the horrors of the Holocaust and support Israel.

I've been saying for years, that a lot of the mindsets floating around since 9/11.... my country, right or wrong.... this irrational throwing away of critical thought to support anything that is construed as for the good of country, and against enemies.... if that's the definition of patriotism, not a single one of those people should have ANY issue with anyone who participated in the Third Reich. Because I'm sure all those people were saying exactly the same thing.

Crazed Rabbit

10-12-2008, 04:57

You're deflecting.

I said that describing the camps as punishment camps was a true statement.

You said that the statement was false because they were also death camps.

I explained that death was one punishment Jews were forced to endure. Therefore, the description was accurate.

Whether the Jews deserved to be punished has no bearing on the description, and no one is making that argument - or comparing legal systems. To describe the camps as "punishment camps" in no way discounts what the Jews experienced; and is, in fact, more severe than the term "concentration".

They were death camps. Deserving has everything to do with it because punishment is viewed as actions taken for justice after a crime. Punishment is viewed as a penalty for wrongdoing.

It is not a more severe term than "concentration camps", because everyone knows what concentration camps means. Calling them anything other than that or death camps is an attempt to hide what they really are. An attempt to gloss over evil.

Ask a Native American about that.. or the citizenry of any number of South American nations.

I never said the government hasn't done evil. But it's the exception to the rule.

To apply descriptors such as "good" and "evil" to entire governments is fundamentally immature and almost always indefensible when taken apart. Governments, by nature, are amoral constructs. The US government and the Nazi government were alike in that they were both concerned first and foremost with furthering their own interests.

"Evil" is more appropriately used to describe individuals, and there were many Nazis that would fit that description. No one thinks otherwise.

Immature? :laugh4:

The Nazi government was headed by Hitler, an evil man. It was filled with evil people and carried out evil purposes. It is not an amoral construct, but a construct to further inflict evil on people. It is nearly alone among governments in history in that regard.

CR

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-12-2008, 05:14

Crazed Rabbit

10-12-2008, 05:16

Yeah, you notice how you have to go down to the fourth definition to get that, and the first three are these:

1. the act of punishing.
2. the fact of being punished, as for an offense or fault.
3. a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc.

Those are the definitions of punishment people think of.

CR

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-12-2008, 05:18

Yeah, you notice how you have to go down to the fourth definition to get that, and the first three are these:

It is still the definition, so he is literally correct...

PanzerJaeger

10-12-2008, 05:24

They were death camps. Deserving has everything to do with it because punishment is viewed as actions taken for justice after a crime. Punishment is viewed as a penalty for wrongdoing.

It is not a more severe term than "concentration camps", because everyone knows what concentration camps means. Calling them anything other than that or death camps is an attempt to hide what they really are. An attempt to gloss over evil.

That doesn't make any sense. Its very obvious that the Jews were sent to the camps to punish them. Punishment can be delivered undeservedly.

Also, you should look up where the term "concentration camp" comes from if you are interested in the use of semantics to gloss over evil.

I never said the government hasn't done evil. But it's the exception to the rule.

I could make a convincing argument to the contrary, but thats not the point.. a point you seem to be missing entirely.

The Nazi government was headed by Hitler, an evil man. It was filled with evil people and carried out evil purposes. It is not an amoral construct, but a construct to further inflict evil on people. It is nearly alone among governments in history in that regard.

Really? :inquisitive:

The _________ government was headed by _________, an evil man. It was filled with evil people and carried out evil purposes. It is not an amoral construct, but a construct to further inflict evil on people.

How many different ways could those blanks be filled?

Crazed Rabbit

10-12-2008, 06:22

It is still the definition, so he is literally correct...

The whole use of the term punishment was meant to deceive and deflect knowledge of what the concentration camps really were. That's the problem with that phrase.

Haider tried to equate a term that is fundamentally understood to meant a penalty for wrongdoing with the Nazi death camps. With that he tried to distort the reality of the concentration camps.

Really?

Oh yes. This is not some case of competing national interests, of people and leaders at odds because they're serving their countries.

Nazi Germany was evil. They were not serving their own interests, even in a wrong way. They were a tool of evil.

CR

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-12-2008, 06:29

Crazed Rabbit

10-12-2008, 06:48

For Louis and CR: http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2000/214/haiderquotes.html

The entire point of this argument is the answer to the question "Was Haider a Neo-Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer." The answer to this question is no.

February, 1995
In a debate in the Austrian parliament on bomb attacks on Romanies, Haider referred to Nazi concentration camps as "prison camps," though he later said that he meant "concentration camps."

Sorry, that's about the same thing.

And with these other actions:

February, 1985
When then Austrian Defense Minister and Freedom Party member Friedhelm Frischenschlager went to meet Walter Reder, a former SS officer return-ing from imprisonment in Italy for war crimes, Haider defended him, saying: "He did not receive a criminal but a soldier who did his duty for his fatherland during the war ... If you are going to speak about war crimes, you should admit such crimes were com-mitted by all sides and not pick on a few German soldiers."

June, 1991
During a debate in the provincial parliament of Carinthia, where he was Governor: "An orderly employment policy was carried out in the Third Reich, which the government in Vienna cannot manage."

May, 1992
Amid the furor created by the Carinthian government's decision to honor a gathering of Waffen SS veterans, Haider accused Interior Minister Franz Loeschnak of making "primitive attacks" on "respectable" war veterans, while letting crime by immigrants go unchecked.

Someone who receives a war criminal who was in the SS, praises the Third Reich in any capacity, or honors Waffen SS veterans is a neo-Nazi, who cloaks his feelings in the way Haider did.

Are you really going to say someone who said and did those things doesn't have Nazi sympathies? Oh, wait, he didn't explicitly say he loved the Nazis, which means he's not a Nazi sympathizer because all those people always come right out and say it straight up and never try to disguise their feelings to gain power. :rolleyes:

CR

PanzerJaeger

10-12-2008, 08:05

The whole use of the term punishment was meant to deceive and deflect knowledge of what the concentration camps really were. That's the problem with that phrase.

Haider tried to equate a term that is fundamentally understood to meant a penalty for wrongdoing with the Nazi death camps. With that he tried to distort the reality of the concentration camps.

Do you honestly believe anyone at that debate didn't know what he meant when he said "the punishment camps of National Socialism"?

Oh yes. This is not some case of competing national interests, of people and leaders at odds because they're serving their countries.

Nazi Germany was evil. They were not serving their own interests, even in a wrong way. They were a tool of evil.

CR

~:rolleyes:

A tool of evil, huh? You give them too much credit. There were plenty of governments that utilized genocide before them, and there have been plenty since. The Nazis can't even claim the top body count, not by far.

Someone get this man an Indian to talk to...

PanzerJaeger

10-12-2008, 08:13

Someone who receives a war criminal who was in the SS, praises the Third Reich in any capacity, or honors Waffen SS veterans is a neo-Nazi, who cloaks his feelings in the way Haider did.

Are you really going to say someone who said and did those things doesn't have Nazi sympathies? Oh, wait, he didn't explicitly say he loved the Nazis, which means he's not a Nazi sympathizer because all those people always come right out and say it straight up and never try to disguise their feelings to gain power. :rolleyes:

CR

I understand why the US government has installed and supported dictators throughout the world that murdered millions of innocent people. I also understand that not everyone who worked at CIA at the time supported the murder of millions of people. Many were probably idealistic, patriotic men and women who wanted to come to the aid of their nation.

That doesn't mean I don't recognize that it was wrong. Its called perspective. A guy from Austria whose parents were Nazis is obviously going to have a different one than you do. That doesn't mean he's a Nazi.

Edit: Perfect example of what I'm talking about, from the ADL no less. The man saw things from a German perspective, but was not a Nazi.

Haider spoke out against the Austrian government's plans to compensate 30,000 Austrian victims of Nazi rule, including Jews, Communists and homosexuals, claiming that Austrian victims of the allies, such as civilians who fled Austria's occupation by US, Soviet, French and British troops, should also be compensated. As he told an elderly Austrian audience in April 1995, "It is not fair if all the money from the tax coffers goes to Israel." However, when the Parliament voted in June to set up a $50 million compensation fund, Haider voted in its favor. Still insisting on the need for compensation for victims of the allies, Haider explained, "But we do not intend to be petty. Even though you will not join us to widen the scope of the fund we will not vote against the bill. We too want to draw a line under a chapter we are also responsible for."

Fragony

10-12-2008, 10:35

Of course there were honorable SS troops, but we ought to place Haiders(?) remarks in the realm of what we know today not what was known back then. If you are going to defend the nazi's you are either one hell of a major idiot or a clever politician capitalising on the existance of major idiots.

Ironside

10-12-2008, 11:30

No I think you misunderstand me. I'm saying that both were instances of ethnic cleansing. The scale of the Holocaust was larger, but both involved state sanctioned murder and concentration camps.

Sadly, the term ethnic cleaning does by itself lack the distinction between ethnically cleansing region and a complete ethnic cleansing. While still both are hideous crimes, there's still a difference that's larger than simply size.

Do you honestly believe anyone at that debate didn't know what he meant when he said "the punishment camps of National Socialism"?

So why the change of a generally accepted word into something that can (and often will) imply guilt? This rewriting of terms is a classical move in propaganda.

For example, what do you think of the teaching facilities in the Communist states?

Also known a re-education centers, the nice term for political prisons. :juggle:

Incongruous

10-12-2008, 12:20

Oh absolutely - I agree. The Totenkopfverbande and Allgemaine SS should be humiliated for their horrors forever. Waffen-SS groups who never had anything to do with purges and most likely had no idea they were going on should be honored like we honor U.S. Marines today for their sacrifice and heroism. They gave their lives to defend a Germany that they believed was right and good, even though at that point it wasn't.

Umm, no, not unless those groups had nothing to do with the barbarity if German conquests in Europe. They gave their lives to conquer entire nations, the fact that they may have died on German soil is the price they payed for such actions.

Them being SS fanatics, I reckons it is certain they did commit attrocities. Not just spur of the moment things in the heat of battle, but for reasons of mission and belief.

Incongruous

10-12-2008, 12:24

The RAF and USAAF also committed atrocities, as well as the Red Army. We shouldn't honour them either, by this logic.

It was the bloody Nazis who wanted to exterminate all undesirables off the face of the bloody earth.
It was the bloody Nazis who started the whole damned thing.:dizzy2:

Husar

10-12-2008, 12:30

Eh, if you cannot judge a party/government by their common agenda Panzer, then going to a ballot and having to make a cross behind one or two parties, instead of hundreds of individuals, sounds like quite a bad idea.
I mean you just proved how stupid it is to form groups and parties based on perceived similarities but almost everyone does it anyways. :dizzy2:

KukriKhan

10-12-2008, 12:47

I don't yet find word of the man's funeral, so let us observe a 72-hour moratorium on criticising his career, out of respect for his survivors.

Open season, therefore Tuesday, 14 October, 1200 GMT.

We were doing OK while keeping the discussion general, and off Herr Haider. But we've delved into criticism of of his career anyway.

Therefore: closed until Tuesday.

KukriKhan

10-17-2008, 05:06

Oops, my bad. I totally forgot about Tuesday, and here it is Thursday night.

Reopened, presuming the man has been interred by now.

Sympathies to his family. :bow:

Open season.

Kadagar_AV

10-17-2008, 07:24

Don't drink and drive:(

I would never have voted for him, but as a politician he brought new life into Austrian politics.

He said many things that were true, but very not politicly correct.

My favourite was when he showed how hypocritical the EU was. When he got voted into the government, EU boycoted Austria for a while, since they had voted for a extreme right wing party.

Oh how strong democracy is! Right?

"You can vote for whoever you want, as long as you don't vote wrong"

This happening led me to get expelled from "society" class, as I claimed it was idiocy for a democratic institution like the EU to not accept a democratic vote.

Oh, the good old times;)

Anyway, rest in peace.

:austria:

Meneldil

10-17-2008, 07:45

Don't drink and drive:(

My favourite was when he showed how hypocritical the EU was. When he got voted into the government, EU boycoted Austria for a while, since they had voted for a extreme right wing party.

Oh how strong democracy is! Right?

"You can vote for whoever you want, as long as you don't vote wrong"

So what ? You admit he was leading a far-right party, and then expect the EU to quietly sit and wait to see how things are going in Austria ?
In the - I admit, quite unlikely - event he would have started some crazy far-right policy, you would then have blamed the EU because 'it didn't do anything ! :-('

The EU did not invade Austria, nor did it push him out of the office. It boycotted Austria, as it was perfectly entitled to do in that case.
Would Le Pen have won the 2002 elections in France, I'm fairly sure - and hope - he would have been boycotted by the EU.

So yeah, do not rest in peace, you were an ass and died in a stupid way.

Kadagar_AV

10-17-2008, 07:55

What is left of democracy when an outcome of a democratic election is not accepted within EU?

Are we free to vote, or restricted in our votes?

It is a vital question. The EU in this case did not behave democraticly.

It would be something different if it was a country outside of the EU, but to not respect teh democratic outcome of a member state?

*rolleyes*

PanzerJaeger

10-17-2008, 09:14

Fragony

10-17-2008, 10:20

Louis VI the Fat

10-17-2008, 14:07

I could not agree more with Meneldil. The EU is not the United Nations, it is instead an assembly of democracies. Franco couldn't join, Salazar couldn't join, the Greek colonels couldn't join, the communists states couldn't join. Not until they were democracies they couldn't. Similarly, if a country lapses into an undemocratic system, it will get kicked out. Less dramatic, if it has undemocratic parties in it's government, it risks resistance, even boycott, from other countries.

Like it or not, the EU is about spreading and safeguarding democracy in Europe. So sorry for all our authoritarian politicians out there. Don't like it? Leave. Get on a plane and fly to North Korea or Syria.
We just spend a disastrous century trying to keep communism, fascism, authroritarianism down. It nearly destroyed Europe. Never again.

Was Haider a nazi? Perhaps not.
But is it unreasonable for Europe to be very wary of nazism in Austria? Of Austrian politicians palling around with SS men, of singing the praise of Austrian moral superiority over lesser peoples, of Austrian anti-Semitism and praise for it's dark WWII history?
I think not.

~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~

Haider died as he lived, over the limit and full of gas.
Alcohol promillage of 1.8, and doing 142 km an hour. Thank God he crashed before he hurt any innocents.

+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~

Frag - you whine about Muslims undermining European values and democracy, trying to install Islamofascism. Yet you are disappointed when Europe actually tries to prevent Eurofascism?

TuffStuff - especially for you: you do realise Haider had many extramarital homosexual affairs? He was legendary in the Vienna gay scene. ~;p

PanzerJaeger - On meeting Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the Iraq war, Haider expressed the 'best wishes of the Austrian people and the Freedom party as well as their solidarity with the people of Iraq and their wise leadership'.
You will need to choose, PJ. A man can't both support America and European nazism. They are mortal enemies.

Fragony

10-17-2008, 14:36

Frag - you whine about Muslims undermining European values and democracy, trying to install Islamofascism. Yet you are disappointed when Europe actually tries to prevent Eurofascism?

I thought you understood my position on the islamisation this is kinda dissapointing. As for Haider, if Haider would be elected would there be no democracy anymore, would there be no opposition, no parlement, he wouldn't be 'in power'. Never really knew him, looking back he is way too extreme for my taste but allowing the EU to intervene in national democratic processes, you kidding me? No way there is nothing that keeps the EU in check. The racist right exists for a reason, that reason being utmost stupidity and sadly the response is even worse if it happens to be the EU.

drone

10-17-2008, 15:36

So does this mean the US gets a free pass from Europe (or at least France) for cutting off the Palestinians when they elected HAMAS? :inquisitive:

Louis VI the Fat

10-17-2008, 15:37

I thought you understood my position on the islamisation this is kinda dissapointing. Actually, I though you and I shared an open and uncompromising aversion to Islamofascism. ~:grouphug:

You like politicians who break open a few taboos. Who shoot some holes in blind muliticulturalism. Maybe I do too. But where's the fun if we can't cross swords over details? ~;p

Fragony

10-17-2008, 15:47

Sorry, in 99% of these cases there isn't any room for play that makes one defensive.

Meneldil

10-17-2008, 16:51

Is there any wonder why the EU is having a hard time sealing the deal? I dont think most people want to restrict democracy within the bounds of what the EU finds acceptable or to be punished when they elect an EU critic.

The EU having a 'hard time sealing the deal' has nothing to do with Jorg Haider. The EU is a mess, that got even more messy with the introduction of 12 new members.

But as Louis said, the EU isn't all about 'free trade and single market', wether our british friends like it or not. It has political aims, such as you know, protecting democracy and all that kind of things.

I'm pretty sure that, would Jorg Haider have been the leader of the Austrian Communist Party, you would all have been like 'Zomg a communist is elected in Europe and the EU isn't doing anything :''''''( '

Fragony

10-17-2008, 16:55

I'm pretty sure that, would Jorg Haider have been the leader of the Austrian Communist Party, you would all have been like 'Zomg a communist is elected in Europe and the EU isn't doing anything :''''''( '

Who is the leader of the austian communist party?

PanzerJaeger

10-17-2008, 19:20

I could not agree more with Meneldil. The EU is not the United Nations, it is instead an assembly of democracies. Franco couldn't join, Salazar couldn't join, the Greek colonels couldn't join, the communists states couldn't join. Not until they were democracies they couldn't. Similarly, if a country lapses into an undemocratic system, it will get kicked out. Less dramatic, if it has undemocratic parties in it's government, it risks resistance, even boycott, from other countries.

Like it or not, the EU is about spreading and safeguarding democracy in Europe. So sorry for all our authoritarian politicians out there. Don't like it? Leave. Get on a plane and fly to North Korea or Syria.
We just spend a disastrous century trying to keep communism, fascism, authroritarianism down. It nearly destroyed Europe. Never again.

Was Haider a nazi? Perhaps not.
But is it unreasonable for Europe to be very wary of nazism in Austria? Of Austrian politicians palling around with SS men, of singing the praise of Austrian moral superiority over lesser peoples, of Austrian anti-Semitism and praise for it's dark WWII history?
I think not.

That's all well and good, but Haider was a democratically elected politician who made no attempts to change that system. If the EU wants to bully countries that elect anti-eu politicians, thats their perogative - but don't try and dress it up as anything other than that.

PanzerJaeger - On meeting Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the Iraq war, Haider expressed the 'best wishes of the Austrian people and the Freedom party as well as their solidarity with the people of Iraq and their wise leadership'.

You act as though his sentiments on the Iraq conflict were unique to Europeans. Most Europeans sought to undermine US efforts. Your own president at the time gave Saddam far more support than Haider ever could have by seriously damaging the transatlantic alliance.

In any event, I do not support every position he held, but I don't discount him completely for those disagreements.

You will need to choose, PJ. A man can't both support America and European nazism. They are mortal enemies.

Nazism is dead. I support honoring the brave German soldiers who fought and died in WW2; and moving past myth of German exceptionalism in the "evil" department.

Also, poor show trying to use the man's sexuality to dissuade his supporters, as if it has anything to do with the discussion. You'd make a wonderful Republican. ~;)

Strike For The South

10-17-2008, 19:23

What is German exceptionalism and why is it evil?

Koga No Goshi

10-17-2008, 19:47

What is German exceptionalism and why is it evil?

I would imagine it's just the German version of American exceptionalism.

And although I think "evil" is a dramatic word, I think the reason any "exceptionalism" is bad is because it is basically embracing the idea that you are better, rules don't apply the same way to you, you rise above other people or countries, etc. etc.

PanzerJaeger

10-17-2008, 20:23

What is German exceptionalism and why is it evil?

"exceptionalism in the 'evil' department"

I was referring to the notion that the Holocaust is somehow a unique event in human history, or even in the Second World War - and thus makes the Germans exceptionally "evil". Sadly, ethnic cleansing was a relatively common occurrence throughout much of history - and still is. As horrific and shameful as the Holocaust was, it was neither the largest in scale nor the most brutal in nature - even in terms of WW2.

A Russian politician who praises the Red Army is not automatically assumed to support wanton genocide and neither is an proud American politician assumed to support using nuclear weapons against innocent women and children. Yet somehow a German or Austrian politician who acknowledges the heroism and sacrifice of honorable German soldiers is assumed to hold Nazi views. It's a double standard that is thankfully subsiding as we move farther from the conflict.

Just to be clear, I'm in no way discounting the atrocity that was the Holocaust in any way. I just feel it gets an inordinate amount of attention for reasons that are not historically justified. It has become a profitable industry.. and frankly, the deliciously evil German archetype is much more interesting to portray in movies and such than some bland and obscure Russian gulag commandant.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-17-2008, 21:17

Louis, there were rumors about Mr. Haider being homosexual, but to my knowledge, they were not conclusively proven. Either way, however, it wouldn't have mattered - are you trying to bait TSM, or are you turning into a member of the evangelical right? ~;)

Viking

10-17-2008, 21:41

Punishment does not impart guilt. I could punish you for something you did not do. Describing the camps as "punishment camps" is accurate.

Yeah, yeah, I'm not into discussing dictionary definitions. All I am in fact saying is that the typical meaning of the word punishment camp actually refers to a camp where someone who has done something society frowns upon is sent.

Besides, as I highlighted, this was simply a passing reference during a debate. It is not as if the man gave a speech about it.

Relevant to my reply just above; could you possibly ever happen to refer to a concentration camp as a punishment camp by accident? What are the odds? How often have one not heard the word 'concentration camp' and being fully aware of its meaning? Personally, I have never ever made such a mixup and have a rather...hard time imagining how I could.

Louis VI the Fat

10-17-2008, 23:21

Haider was a cocaine sniffing pederast.

I brought it up, not so much because I mind - except for Haider's incereasing tendency to rape fifteen year old Slovakian boys for kicks - but because I have an inkling that it might dissuade TuffStuffMcGruff away from him. TSM expressed some curiousity about Haider. Now he knows who Haider is.
Did I mention yet that our hypocrite portrayed himself as a family man? Married with children and all that?

I'm sorry I only have a German link (http://www.hosiwien.at/hosi-wien-zu-haider-fotos-in-%E2%80%9Eprofil%E2%80%9C/). However, the accompanying pictures should suffice.

No more cocaine-imbued rape-fests of Slovakian children for you, Jörg! Auf Wiedersehn!

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-17-2008, 23:26

I'm sorry I only have a German link (http://www.hosiwien.at/hosi-wien-zu-haider-fotos-in-%E2%80%9Eprofil%E2%80%9C/). However, the accompanying pictures should suffice.

Come on Louis, a better source if you please. I'd at least like some guarantee that those aren't photoshopped.

Tribesman

10-17-2008, 23:36

I did hear that Haider was going to be cremated , but there is a rumour that the crematoria are only a myth .

Louis VI the Fat

10-17-2008, 23:50

Links for Haider's homosexuality?

Here you go (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,555665,00.html).

Oops, that was a link to a recently unveiled Berlin monument to homosexual nazi-victims. So sorry about that.

Did I mention yet that Haider was big friends with the SS troops that were responsible for the extermination of his homosexual friends? The guy ought to make his mind up. Tsk.

Here you go:
Haider got drunk in a gay bar. He seemed to have enjoyed himself - his alcohol promillage was four times the legal limit. In fact, he enjoyed himself so much, that he almost forgot he was supposed to be at his ninety-year old mother's birthday, where his family was waiting for him. So Haider speeded over there, with utter disregard for the lives of his fellow Austrian drivers and pedestrains. Then he crashed himself to death.
English language link. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/austria/3217869/Joerg-Haider-was-drinking-in-a-gay-bar-before-he-crashed.html)

I did hear that Haider was going to be cremated , but there is a rumour that the crematoria are only a myth. :laugh4:

Louis VI the Fat

10-18-2008, 00:32

PanzerJaeger, rather than adressing your post point-by-point, I'll share this:

Austria, of course, had nothing to fear from a European political boycott. Because, as a reward, Haider was supplied cheap oil from Israel's mortal enemies: Arab dictatorships. All Haider had to do was buddy up with his friends (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/770142.stm), the anti-Semitists and the anti-Americans of this world.

Controversial Austrian politician Joerg Haider has caused a stir by arranging petrol prices some 12% lower than the national average in the province where he is governor.

Mr Haider has declined to specify where he acquired the petrol, but political commentators in Austria are linking the cheap oil purchase with Mr Haider's recent meeting with Libyan President, Muammar Gaddafi. No wonder Haider was enduringly popular with his province's hard-right electorate. The double whammy of supporting anti-American terrorism and thereby guaranteeing favourable oil prices for his province did the trick.

Of course, it is no wonder that Haider and his close personal friends Gadaffi and Saddam (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1817993.stm) got along so well. Each shared an intense hatred of their mortal enemies Israel and the United States. And based their foreign political goals on the destruction of both states.
I am sorry to report that I do not take kindly to people who fanatically hate America.

Austria's Freedom Party has defended far-right politician Joerg Haider's meeting in Baghdad with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who used the occasion to urge Europe to distance itself from the United States.

The party said Mr Haider's trip to the Iraqi capital was a "courageous" humanitarian initiative designed to supplement the activities of the Austrian Foreign Ministry, although a ministry spokesman indicated his department had not been fully informed of the mission.

Speaking next to Mr Haider on Tuesday, the Iraqi president launched into a scathing attack on the US - and urged Washington to consider why the terrorist attacks of 11 September had occurred in America, and not in Europe.

Correspondents say the trip appears likely to cause some embarrassment among members of the conservative People's Party, with whom the Freedom Party sits in the Vienna government.

Iraq has also been seeking to improve its ties with the outside world in the face of renewed US military threats. President Hussein said during his meeting with Mr Haider that he hoped to develop relations with Austria, and strengthen contacts between his own ruling Baath party and the Freedom Party. Freedom Party delegates have in the past travelled to Iraq on "fact-finding" missions, returning with reports on the humanitarian situation in the country.

Mr Haider has also personally nurtured ties in the Middle East. Last November he travelled to Iran and Syria, and was recently seen in Vienna with the son of Libya leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Did I mention yet that for years Haider had a close, enduring and 'special relationship' with the homosexual son of Gadaffi?

EMFM: German link (http://diepresse.com/home/kultur/medien/347667/index.do) for you, that talks about the implications of Haider and outing him as homosexual.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-18-2008, 02:43

EMFM: German link (http://diepresse.com/home/kultur/medien/347667/index.do) for you, that talks about the implications of Haider and outing him as homosexual.

Whether he was a homosexual or not is a matter of some debate, and I thank you for your convincing side of the argument and the link, I'll read it when it's not so late. :bow:

At the same time, it doesn't really matter to me whether he was homosexual or not, since his private life is his own business and I don't really care which way people like to go. I'd vote based on merit, but I'm sure someone will continue the debate on the issue. ~:)

KarlXII

10-18-2008, 03:18

Whether he was a homosexual or not is a matter of some debate, and I thank you for your convincing side of the argument and the link, I'll read it when it's not so late. :bow:

At the same time, it doesn't really matter to me whether he was homosexual or not, since his private life is his own business and I don't really care which way people like to go. I'd vote based on merit, but I'm sure someone will continue the debate on the issue. ~:)

The problem I had with him was the whole Slovenian-German segregation he tried bringing in, particularly in the schools. We had a lot of people die so that blacks could actually be educated here in the States, and I find it particularly troubling that he tried segregating Slovenians from Germans in the schools. Towns with over 10% Slovenian minority were supposed to have bilingual signs put in, instead, he decided to take down existant ones. After personally moving a sign after it was deemed unconstitutional by the Austrian Supreme Court, he compared himself to Jesus Christ.

Big_John

10-18-2008, 04:53

Louis, are you implying that haider palled around with terrorists?

Kadagar_AV

10-18-2008, 05:10

As an Austrian I take offence to this thread.

Was he a perfect politician or a perfect man? Nope. Did he say and do some stupid stuff? Yepp.

However, that is not the issue. If you judge someone from the lowest of his abilities anyone would be seen as bad. May I remind you that the large majority of you who post here only know about him from an article or two. That is not the whole picture. I have lived in the country where he was active for a couple of years all in all, and take my word for the fact that he did some good too.

Again, I would never have voted for him. However, I can not honsetly say he didn't serve his country to the best of his abilities.

So he disagreed with a lot of American policys? So do I. Will you gloat if I die too?

Seriosly people, the person in question is dead. Show some respect.

I will gladly further a discussion about Haider with other Austrians who actually know something about him. But this non-Austrian trashtalk about a dead person who spent much of his life fighting for what he believed in is.... tasteless.

I don't like George W. Bush, but I would not gloat if he died either. In fact, I wouldn't gloat if anyone died.

He lived and loved just like you or anyone else.

So please, a little respect in this thread would be in order.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

:austria:

KarlXII

10-18-2008, 05:49

I'm not gloating in his death, I'm merely remarking on my dissatisfation with his segregationist views when it came to Slovenians.

Kadagar_AV

10-18-2008, 06:07

My remark was directed towards "terrorist, drug abuser, homosexual, nazi..." and so on...

Tribesman

10-18-2008, 10:20

I will gladly further a discussion about Haider with other Austrians who actually know something about him. But this non-Austrian trashtalk about a dead person who spent much of his life fighting for what he believed in is.... tasteless.

Does that mean its tasteless for non-Austrians to slag off Adolf ?

Fragony

10-18-2008, 14:23

I'm not gloating in his death, I'm merely remarking on my dissatisfation with his segregationist views when it came to Slovenians.

Which is fair imho. Every politician is a person in the end, attacking the politics isn't attacking the person. Don't want that, then shut up. Not going to blame people for not being particulary saddened that he's gone. I'm not and I happen to agree with him on a lot of things but I have to draw a line somewhere. There are a lot of good people on the right, can't lose them to the likes of him.

JR-

10-18-2008, 16:44

So what ? You admit he was leading a far-right party, and then expect the EU to quietly sit and wait to see how things are going in Austria ?
In the - I admit, quite unlikely - event he would have started some crazy far-right policy, you would then have blamed the EU because 'it didn't do anything ! :-('

The EU did not invade Austria, nor did it push him out of the office. It boycotted Austria, as it was perfectly entitled to do in that case.
Would Le Pen have won the 2002 elections in France, I'm fairly sure - and hope - he would have been boycotted by the EU.

So yeah, do not rest in peace, you were an ass and died in a stupid way.

an attitude, that if prevalent among the EU quangocrats, that is another reason why i want the UK to have as little to do with the EU as possible.

I could not agree more with Meneldil. The EU is not the United Nations, it is instead an assembly of democracies. Franco couldn't join, Salazar couldn't join, the Greek colonels couldn't join, the communists states couldn't join. Not until they were democracies they couldn't. Similarly, if a country lapses into an undemocratic system, it will get kicked out. Less dramatic, if it has undemocratic parties in it's government, it risks resistance, even boycott, from other countries.

that defies belief!
how was the election of haider anything other than democratic?

JR-

10-18-2008, 16:47

nb

neither of my comments above indicate any support for haider or his ideas, i would quite frankly be embarassed if my country even came close to electing someone of his ilk.

Oleander Ardens

10-18-2008, 17:14

I will never agree with Haiders ideology but painting him as Nazi goes far to far. If he would be have been an Italian or Czech nobody would have gone so far. And many Italians aka Bossi have more extremist policies than he had.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-18-2008, 17:23

People should check out Haider's policies on the Wiki page for the Austrian election. They're really not that far-right, whether you agree with him or not.

Fragony

10-18-2008, 17:39

I will never agree with Haiders ideology but painting him as Nazi goes far to far.

Not if you make an effort out of dragging them in it isn't, perfectly acceptable to hold that against him. Nazi's are scum, they aren't even right they believe in strong government, they are racist totalitarian idiots that is all. The real right is about equality, screw nazi's and anything that comes even remotily close to being close.

Meneldil

10-20-2008, 00:35

Who is the leader of the austian communist party?

And your point is ?

an attitude, that if prevalent among the EU quangocrats, that is another reason why i want the
UK to have as little to do with the EU as possible.

/sadface, we will miss UK so much. Oh wait, UK will never leave EU anyway.

that defies belief!
how was the election of haider anything other than democratic?

You're off the point. None said Haider wasn't elected democratically (but then, may I remind you that a lot of :flower: were elected democratically).

What you having a hard time to understand is that Jorg Haider was out of the political spectrum on which are built the basis of an European Community. Thus, the EU as a political entity was perfectly entitled in boycotting him.

Mind you, I can understand all the fuss about the will of the sovereign people of Austria. But if you still believe in 'the will of the people' than I recommend you a reality check.

A lot of countries (including the US) use boycott quite commonly against democratic governments. Why does it suddenly become an issue when the EU boycott a far-right party led by a freak ?

Seriosly people, the person in question is dead. Show some respect.
That whole 'You Shall Not Say Bad Things About That Guy Because He's Dead' is probably the worst part of the PC crap that have been enforced over the western world in the last decades.
The guy lost all respect I could have had for him when he decided to drive while intoxicated.

Husar

10-20-2008, 11:09

That whole 'You Shall Not Say Bad Things About That Guy Because He's Dead' is probably the worst part of the PC crap that have been enforced over the western world in the last decades.

I don't always understand it either, maybe I should talk more about the positive sides of Saddam and Vlad the impaler instead of mentioning their cruel aspects all the time, I mean that's pretty disrespectful of such great politicians who did a lot of good to themselves. :shrug:

Kadagar_AV

10-20-2008, 12:04

Vlad the impaler wasnt that bad... He got a bad name in the west, indeed... But newer (less anti-russ) scientific studies has showed that he was more of a folkhero than a villain...

If you have the time, read up on him. He is a quite fascinating character:)

Louis VI the Fat

10-20-2008, 13:29

As an Austrian I take offence to this thread.

Seriosly people, the person in question is dead. Show some respect.

I will gladly further a discussion about Haider with other Austrians who actually know something about him. But this non-Austrian trashtalk about a dead person who spent much of his life fighting for what he believed in is.... tasteless.

He lived and loved just like you or anyone else.

So please, a little respect in this thread would be in order.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

:austria: Piety and respect, Kadagar? Where's Austria's respect?

Unlike Haider, the victims of WWII are not yet all dead and buried. And yet Austria insists Europe should've simply accepted a nazi provocateur in Austria's government? And pretend as if nothing is going on? As if nothing ever happened? We should just smile and have our picture taken with an Austrian anti-semitic nazi sympathiser? One who lives in a 16.5 million house that his nazi family aquired under controversial circumstances from a fleeing Jew in 1941? And laugh along when Haider makes another one of his anti-Semitic 'jokes'?

Yes, Haider was popular, and did a lot for the self-esteem of some Austrians ('boy, did we show those pesky Europeans good! Aren't we a cool independent lot!')

Here's what: maybe we actually do know something about Haider. Maybe there is a majority of Austrians too who know Haider very well. And maybe they think he is a painful embarrassment to Austria.

I, too, shall end my post the Austrian flag, out of respect for democratic Austria.

:austria:

Mouzafphaerre

10-21-2008, 05:01

.

Seriosly people, the person in question is dead. Show some respect.
So are Enver Paşa, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mustafa Kemal, Pol Pot etc. Whether Haider managed to become one of those in his lifetime doesn't matter. They all get equal respect from me.
.

Fragony

10-21-2008, 07:56

Unlike Haider, the victims of WWII are not yet all dead and buried. And yet Austria insists Europe should've simply accepted a nazi provocateur in Austria's government? And pretend as if nothing is going on? As if nothing ever happened? We should just smile and have our picture taken with an Austrian anti-semitic nazi sympathiser? One who lives in a 16.5 million house that his nazi family aquired under controversial circumstances from a fleeing Jew in 1941? And laugh along when Haider makes another one of his anti-Semitic 'jokes'?

Well yes.

Tribesman

10-22-2008, 01:59

Seriosly people, the person in question is dead. Show some respect.

Bollox .
Respect = not going to the funeral and then slagging them off in front of the family at the graveside .

Ronin

10-23-2008, 15:31

A more serious question raises it´s head...

are all right-wing homophobes secretly butt-pirates???

Guardian Article - Jörg Haider's successor claims they where gay lovers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/23/jorge)

come on......self-hating secret gays are so XX century.....just come out guys....you´ll be happier and we´ll be spared the silly right wing rhetoric.

Oleander Ardens

10-23-2008, 16:01

Franky I don't know nor I care if Haider was gay.

What is surprising, or what isn't, is that a prominent politician on the far right in a German speaking area is for some basically a Nazi under cover. People saying worse in other languages are just on the far right. It is not just offending to victims that a person says silly things about a terrible regime, it is also offending to the victims of the Nazi regime when the term "Nazi" gets thrown around like that.

Louis VI the Fat

10-23-2008, 18:26

No it isn't Oleander. Haider is more interesting than a simple nazi, yes. A term which does not fully describe the man and his policies. And indeed, randomly calling everybody a nazi diminishes the term.

An insult to Haider, though, it is not. And even if we can't speak for the dead, certainly, few WWII vivtims think it is an insult to call a nazi a man who meets repeatedly with SS veteran groups, in a house stolen from a fleeing Jew, and praises them as honourable men in between making anti-Semitic remarks.
Outside of Austria, the fabulous world of the internet and the mental realm of socially isolated semi-intellectuals with twisted sympathies, few think it is far fetched to heap scorn at Haider for his nazi provocations.

~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+

I myself, in turn, find it exasparating that whenever a German speaker is called out for nazi provocations, worldwide nazidom reverses the accusation and cries that he is only called a nazi because he is German. Get over the victim complex. Nazis were the perpetrators, they are a bloody disgrace. As importantly, nobody ever thinks of Germany as a nazi state, and the whole world has come to terms with Germany's and Austria's past. All have, except for nazis - the world's biggest crybabies. They murder fifty million, and then cry for decades that everybody is so mean to them and keeps calling them names.

You know, I don't even mind PanzerJaeger. He likes nazis, sympathises with them, and if it were up to him, they'd kill fifty million more. Fine. I can deal with it and debate it. I vehemently disagree, but it doesn't get my back up all the time.
Certainly I respect it more than crybabies who either refuse to acknowledge that the nazis were murderers (the gas chambers are all lies!), or who cry over the evil Russians and British (boohoohoo...they bombed Dresden! ~:mecry:), or who persist in crying that 'we didn't know what was going on in WWII', or who cry that it was all the fault of somebody else. (The Jews! The French! The Americans!)

Louis VI the Fat

10-23-2008, 18:31

As for Haider's gayness: yes, it is relevant. Firstly, there is the usual notion that somebody's sexuality is relevant for politicians who portray themselves as conservative family man. Haider lived two lives:

Haider, who voted against a parliamentary motion to lower the age of consent for homosexuals, had presented himself as a family man who drank sparingly. But after the car crash it was revealed that he had been driving at twice the speed limit, his blood alcohol level had been four times the legal limit, and he had spent his final hours in a gay bar in Klagenfurt (Link from Ronin's post above)

Secondly, it is important since this is Austria. A cocaine sniffing pederast nazi provocateur, that is exactly what Haider was. And he was this because he was Austrian. I think I'll do more than just insult Haider. I'll take some swipes at the whole of Austria:
Austria has never come to terms with its nazi past. Much less so than Germany. Austria was not de-nazified like Germany was after WWII. The nazi period was seen as a foreign invasion, an alien aborration of Austria's history. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Nazism has many roots, but certainly Austria's history is among the foremost of them. Nazism is better described as Austro-Balkan nationalism that invaded Germany at a time when Germany was confused and bitter.
Austria has not engaged in some self-criticism. In taking a long, hard look into what made Austria a nazi hotbed, and how this could be prevented.

Behind the tidy, bourgeois façades of Austria - upheld externally and domestically, individually and collectively - something always brews. Be it the rape cellars of family men, secretly gay politicians who vote anti-gay laws, widespread nazi-sympathies from businessmen, perennial anti-Semitism in intellectual powerhouse Vienna, or hatred of Slavs in precisely the Austrian provinces that are inhabited by Germanised Slavs. No wonder Freud was a product of Austria.

That is Austria. And Haider, his complicated character and policies, and his popularity at home, are the unique products of Austria.

Louis VI the Fat

10-23-2008, 18:36

are all right-wing homophobes secretly butt-pirates???Lovely link, Ronin. I think he wasn't the lover of Haider though, Just infatuated with him all these years.
I think Haider stuck with Gadaffi - he was his long-term homosexual relationship, and he mixed this with ever younger Slovakian boys for his quick fixes.

And no, not all gays of the hardright are closet homosexuals. Austrians usually are. Americans are too. Toe-tapping family men.
Why? Because of the social conservatism of their countries. Because of the schizophrenia this creates. One wonders whether many didn't turn into hardright conservative 'family men' because of their latent sexual preference in the first place.

Hence, French and Iberian homosexual rightwingers are usually...leftwingers. Socially more tolerant, less religious rigidity, more relaxed about human physicality, they can cope psychologically with their gayness and don't need to supress their inner demons by turning into hardright, obsessive 'family values' men. Psychologically, there is little problem, socially, the societies are not open enough to publically embrace homosexuality, so they choose leftwing progressiveness.

And of course, fully open societies like the Dutch have rightwingers who are openly gay, and who are popular amongst the extreme hardright because of it.

Strike For The South

10-23-2008, 18:38

This thread touch a nerve Louie? :clap:

rvg

10-23-2008, 18:39

I'll say nothing about the guy, because quite honestly nothing good comes to mind.

Ronin

10-23-2008, 18:44

Lovely link, Ronin. I think he wasn't the lover of Haider though, Just infatuated with him all these years.
I think Haider stuck with Gadaffi - he was his long-term homosexual relationship, and he mixed this with ever younger Slovakian boys for his quick fixes.

And no, not all gays of the hardright are closet homosexuals. Austrians usually are. Americans are too. Toe-tapping family men.
Why? Because of the social conservatism of their countries. Because of the schizophrenia this creates. One wonders whether many didn't turn into hardright conservative 'family men' because of their latent sexual preference in the first place.

Freudian slip? :wiseguy:

Hence, French and Iberian homosexual rightwingers are usually...leftwingers. Socially more tolerant, less religious rigidity, more relaxed about human physicality, they can cope psychologically with their gayness and don't need to supress their inner demons by turning into hardright, obsessive 'family values' men. Psychologically, there is little problem, socially, the societies are not open enough to publically embrace homosexuality, so they choose leftwing progressiveness.

And of course, fully open societies like the Dutch have rightwingers who are openly gay, and who are popular amongst the extreme hardright because of it.

I don´t know about that...there has been "talk" about the leader of our right wing party for years now....and if it was confirmed to be true he´d be finished politically.