Jorg Haider is Dead

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

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.

CR

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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".

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

The Nazis were an abomination, and I hate them.

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

---

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Punishment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

4. severe handling or treatment.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

Quote:

---

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

For Louis and CR: http://www.time.com/time/europe/maga...derquotes.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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

For Louis and CR: http://www.time.com/time/europe/maga...derquotes.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.

---

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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."

---

Quote:

---

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."

---

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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"?

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adl

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."

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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:

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kukri

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.

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

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*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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.

---

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.