No better than them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

That's not ideal Communism. For ideal Communism, I'd suggest you read Thomas More book "Utopia", dated of 1516 (Wierd they had invented Communism as an ideal way back then)

---

I'm aware. I think you may have misinterpreted my point. You said that the ideal of communism was impossible to correctly apply, and I simply agreed with you by citing a massive death toll.

About the book Utopia, I seem to recall that there may have been some debate about parts of the work being satirical in nature. Feel free to correct me if I am incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Nazism wasn't the ideal of fascism”: Fascism isn’t Nazism. Fascism is not based on Racism and Extermination. Fascism can be compare to Communism in political spectrum, just opposite… Even Franco's fascism, as bloody and repressive it was, didn’t built extermination camps.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Fascism

Quote:

---

You misinterpreted.

---

Good.

Brenus.

:embarassed:

You are in fact correct and I am in fact an idiot, it was not you who expressed regret that the Germans and their country had not been destroyed:shame:. That was actually another poster and a fellow Frenchman.
I would buy you a beer if possible but alas...

However my apology does nopt dispell my initial belief that the Czech government was as vile as the Nazi government of Germany, as it sought to ethnically "purify" its nation by the use of the Czech army.

I also still hold the Allies responsible for having given these acts legal status in their wartime treaties and talks and their lack of condemnation after these acts had been carried out. I also hold that the Western Allies were just as capable of mass murder or genocide as the Nazi's were. I use the progress of the 20th century as evidence that France, The U.K and the U.S were quite willing to put "morality" on the backburner when expedient.

But that is perhaps a discussion for another thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

I also still hold the Allies responsible for having given these acts legal status in their wartime treaties and talks and their lack of condemnation after these acts had been carried out.

---

Most summaries I have read regarding the Tehran, Yalta, & Potsdam summit meetings suggest that the Soviet "puppet" governments of Eastern/Central Europe were more or less a fait accompli. Short of an ultimatum to Stalin backed by the threat of force he wasn't likely to budge. In fact, both FDR and Churchill thought him fully capable of "stalling" his offense and allowing the US/UK forces to do most of the bleeding while the CCCP waited and swooped in for a big land grab at the finish. Their decisions were made with this in mind and in hopes of minimizing their own casualties. Was Patton correct? Should we have paused, re-organized the Wehrmacht under U.S/U.K. leadership and gone right after the Russians to kick them back to the 9/1/39 border? A bloody task for which the Western nations were not psychologically ready. Protests of Soviet action (and the action of the Czech and other regimes under Soviet influence) were pretty scarce prior to 1956, I agree, but I believe you seriously mis-caculate the position of the US and the UK as the war drew to its close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

I also hold that the Western Allies were just as capable of mass murder or genocide as the Nazi's were. I use the progress of the 20th century as evidence that France, The U.K and the U.S were quite willing to put "morality" on the backburner when expedient.

---

If you mean in the general sense that ANY group, under a series of pressure events and with a leadership cadre devoid of any sense of morality, might be led astray then I think you speak to certain inherent weaknesses in the human condition.

The 20th century shows all of the states you mention balancing national interest against moral absolutes. Nevertheless I would disagree that morality was put on the "backburner" as a normal course. Were poor choices made in pursuit of some larger goal? Yes. Were some selfish interests pursued, sometimes at other's expense? Yes. Were these elements the dominant component of the policies of the nations you mention? No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I'm aware. I think you may have misinterpreted my point. You said that the ideal of communism was impossible to correctly apply, and I simply agreed with you by citing a massive death toll.

About the book Utopia, I seem to recall that there may have been some debate about parts of the work being satirical in nature. Feel free to correct me if I am incorrect.

---

Yeah, I did misinterpret it. About the satiricism, I've read some years ago, but I don't recall catching any such thing, but it's probable. But then I don't have the culture that was on England's XVI's century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Hmmmm.... Just how is a "military dictator" any worse than the "royal dictators" he fought...? We usually glorify our Kings, don't we? I can't honestly see what Napoleon did which made him worse. Oh wait, now I remember, he lost in the end, and lost the chance to write the history himself ~;)

---

I'm not particulary fond of "my" Royal family, and most of us are just happy that they've done a relatively decent job keeping their dirty laundry indoors for the last 2 decades and not giving the rest of us reason to feel embarassed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Yeah, I did misinterpret it. About the satiricism, I've read some years ago, but I don't recall catching any such thing, but it's probable. But then I don't have the culture that was on England's XVI's century.

---

:bow:

“You are in fact correct and I am in fact an idiot”: You are not. You are a person who believe something and reacted with anger. A little bit like the post war reactions after WW2. Did you ever read books about the “Epuration – in French in the text-” in France?

“Czech government was as vile as the Nazi government of Germany” That is not possible. \if you mean that some actions were unjust, unfair and somehow inhuman yes. But Nazism is the degree zero, the metre-stallion of evil.
It is often compare with communism in figures and methods.
Don’t get me wrong. To be awake at 4 in the morning by the Gestapo and to end in Wilhem-Strasse was as bad as to be awake by the KGB/GEPEOU and to end in the Lubyanka (is it the same root than Serbian, Ljubav, (Love) or not?).
However, if you are a truly real believer in the communist faith, you do good things.
If you are a truly real believer in the Nazi faith you do Evil things.
It is all about what the BOOKS say.
As for Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition is not what Christ preached, the thinkers of communism are not responsible what political leaders using their work did on their names.
But Hitler, creator of the Nazism did preach hatered, extramination, violence, domination and racism. It is in the book.

“Was Patton correct? Should we have paused, re-organized the Wehrmacht under U.S/U.K. leadership and gone right after the Russians to kick them back to the 9/1/39 border?” In succeeding where the Nazi Germany has failed? Shermans against JS 2...? I doubt it.
Then we would have to fight the Communist Guerrilla in Italy and France, most probably, battle hardened for this kind of actions and fully equipped…
Can you imagine the French soldiers fighting alongside the SS?
And what happened about the Extermination Camps? We just closed them, oops mistake...?
No, unfortunately the Nazism forbade this possibility. What ever the Communists did evil, it was not enough to forget and forgive Treblinka, Nacht and Neble:

“La mort face à face - chaque jour, à chaque instant. La faux du crachin, de la pluie, du brouillard - les ténèbres du brouillard et de la nuit - les nuits blanches de la nuit concentrationnaire - la nuit blessée, tranchée par les réflecteurs des miradors - la nuit glauque des réveils tonitruants pour aller décharger un train de briques arrivé pendant votre sommeil - la nuit soudain embrassée par les flambées, les coups de feu des fours crématoires. Les fumées - les volutes de fumée rabattues nuit et jour sur les baraquements - l'âcre odeur de chair roussie... La nuit des sentinelles, des cerbères et des molosses. La nuit crépitante - "bruit de pas et bruit des armes" - les hurlements des bergers allemands - les vociférations des SS - le claquement des fusils qu'on recharge. La peur toujours présente - l'oppression permanente! L'abîme, la fosse, où chacun se sent précipité à jamaiscette oubliette qui rappelait à l'un de mes camarades ces vers de Baudelaire :
J'implore ta pitié, Toi, l'unique que j'aime,
Du fond du gouffre obscur où mon coeur est tombé. "

Death face to face - each day, at every moment. The scythe of the drizzle, the rain, the fog - darkness of the fog and the night - sleepless nights of the concentration night - the wounded night, sliced by the reflectors of the watchtowers - the gloomy night of the thundering awaking to go to unload a train from bricks arrived during your sleep - the night suddenly embraced by the blazes, the shots of the crematoriums. Fume - volutes of smoke folded back night and day on the hutments - bitter odour of turned russet flesh… The night of the sentinels, the Cerbere and dark dogs. The crackling night - “noise of step and noise of the weapons” - howls of the German shepherds - uproar of the SS - the slapping of rifles which one reloads. Fear always present - permanent oppression! The abyss, the pit, where each one feels precipitated forever which recalled to the one my comrades these verses of Baudelaire:

I beseech your pity,
You, the single one that I love,
Of the bottom of the obscure pit where my heart fell”

By Haïm Vidal Sephiha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

(is it the same root than Serbian, Ljubav, (Love) or not?).

---

Could be, but I doubt it. Anyway, the building got its name for the fact the it's in the Lubyanka square in Moscow, and the name of the square dates back to the middle ages, so there's no connection to the KGB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

However, if you are a truly real believer in the communist faith, you do good things.

---

I'm sorry, but I must disagree. True Marxism, if you wish to call that the "communist faith," advocates the revolution of the proletariat - in essence, violent class conflict, or in other words, the ends justifying the means. Communism is just as disgusting an ideology as fascism, and Stalinism or Leninism are just as, or very close to, as disgusting as Nazism.

Meaning well does not absolve you of crime. :book:

I don't think you can equate advocating revolution with nazism.... in a democratic system revolution would not be nessecary anyway, and in a non democratic system revolution is perhaps even better than staying as they are...

I would rate stalinism at a similar level, probably give it a few less points on the evil scoreboard... but stalinism was truely terrible... but the ideaology's (communism and facism) are seperate from this evilness, in essence they are just idea's which don't propose harm to anyone (im not as sure about facism here...) they may result in harm (if you think they both inevitably lead to totalitarianism) but the ideas themselves aren't paticularly bad* (again less sure on facism)

*bad as in evil rather than workable....

“True Marxism, if you wish to call that the "communist faith," advocates the revolution of the proletariat - in essence, violent class conflict, or in other words, the ends justifying the means” Nope. Marx DESCRIBED capitalism in term of violent class conflict by essence, meaning the workers and their bosses haven’t the same interests in some points e.g. workers wanting big salaries, management wanting to pay them as low they can… So the possible answer (because each class defend its privileges) if to fight for yours rights.
The French Revolution wasn’t a “Communist” Revolution; it was in fact a “Bourgeoisie” Revolution which sized powers from the Nobility illustrated Marx’s comments (Commune de Paris as well). And it was really violent... Federalist against Etatist, Blues aginst Whites, and a little bit of Religious wars...

“Meaning well does not absolve you of crime”: No it doesn’t. But I would like to see a book about the Crimes of Christianity (or others religions) written on the same parameters, of Crimes of Capitalism. You know kind of: capitalism is guilty of the millions of Irish dying of starvation because market economy resolves every thing and the thousands of Boers (and the Indian mass deportation and killing) killed or let to die because some one wanted their gold mines or their lands…:beam:

Or the crimes of imperialism/colonialism, by far the most vile idea if you go by the numbers, even Stalin and Mao look like children when you compare it to the death ratios in that age...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Nope. Marx DESCRIBED capitalism in term of violent class conflict by essence, meaning the workers and their bosses haven’t the same interests in some points e.g. workers wanting big salaries, management wanting to pay them as low they can… So the possible answer (because each class defend its privileges) if to fight for yours rights.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian_revolution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wiki

In Marxism, the need for a proletarian revolution is a cornerstone and the first step towards dismantling the exploitations brought about by capitalism.

---

Quote:

---

No it doesn’t. But I would like to see a book about the Crimes of Christianity (or others religions) written on the same parameters, of Crimes of Capitalism.

---

I love how whenever we talk about the evils of communism or Stalinism it is absolutely necessary to draw comparisons, but when we talk about the evils of fascism or Nazism anyone who draws comparisons is callous, cruel, or completely incorrect...anyways, as an answer, I have a very difficult time believing that Christianity and capitalism have killed as many as communism.

Quote:

---

capitalism is guilty of the millions of Irish dying of starvation because market economy resolves every thing

---

One million dead. Compare to the Holodomor. That's if you can blame capitalism for the potato famine.

Quote:

---

and the thousands of Boers

---

Twenty-four thousand, also relatively incomparable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Or the crimes of imperialism/colonialism, by far the most vile idea if you go by the numbers, even Stalin and Mao look like children when you compare it to the death ratios in that age...

---

For Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom, R.J. Rummel estimates between 870,000 and fifty million from 1900 to now, and including (I believe) all deaths and population decline in colonial countries, so the total is probably inflated. Still less than the Soviet Union.

Compare to communism, which is easily responsible for the deaths of easily over a hundred million in less than a hundred years.

If you're so sure on numbers and ratios, perhaps you would like to make a contribution here.

“In Marxism, the need for a proletarian revolution is a cornerstone and the first step towards dismantling the exploitations brought about by capitalism.” And? Where the compulsory thing for violence? A revolution isn’t necessary violent. Yes, Marx acknowledged it would mostly be because the upper-classes will defend their privileges. As de facto they did in all social movements…

“I love how whenever we talk about the evils of communism or Stalinism it is absolutely necessary to draw comparisons, but when we talk about the evils of fascism or Nazism anyone who draws comparisons is callous, cruel, or completely incorrect...anyways, as an answer, I have a very difficult time believing that Christianity and capitalism have killed as many as communism.”
I am the one claiming that to compare Nazism and Communism is non-sense…:inquisitive:
It is always the defenders of the poor Nazi which always come with, oh yeah but look what Stalin did…
About Christianity, it is not so hard if you just thing about South America.
And about Capitalism, you really that all the several campaigns of Colonial and Post Colonial wars, various repression and acquisition of native lands killed only 50 millions people? Ah, yes, from 1900. Err, not to mention of course, just for the French, before this date France had the time to built two Colonial Empires, the first one lost to the English, and the other (mainly after 1870) which will last until the 1960s around.
Just for knowledge, the Algerians claimed 2,000,000 victims during the 1954-1963 war of Independence… I don’t thing this figure is accurate but…
For Indochina alone, between US, Japan and French we largely pass this figure. Just the famine organise by the Japanese in 1943-44 killed more Vietnamese than this.

“Compare to communism, which is easily responsible for the deaths of easily over a hundred million in less than a hundred years.” What a joke…:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: 1 million per year. Yeah, this kind of claim proved the seriousness of the study… :laugh4:And I am sure they ate the livers of their victims as well…:smash:
Man, when in a same sentence you find twice “easily” (or for sure), it smells fish…:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Yes, Marx acknowledged it would mostly be because the upper-classes will defend their privileges.

---

And there we go. Revolution generally implies bloodshed - and communist revolutions almost always had bloodshed.

Quote:

---

It is always the defenders of the poor Nazi which always come with, oh yeah but look what Stalin did…

---

You seem to be playing the exact same role by saying "yes, but look at what the Christians/capitalists did..."

Quote:

---

About Christianity, it is not so hard if you just thing about South America.

---

Wars fought and genocides committed specifically "for" Christianity rather than just by nations where the dominant religion was Christianity are two different things. That is like saying that atheism is a terrible system of thought because the Soviet Union was essentially a de facto state atheist nation. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

And about Capitalism, you really that all the several campaigns of Colonial and Post Colonial wars, various repression and acquisition of native lands killed only 50 millions people?

---

So colonialism automatically equals capitalism? :inquisitive:

In colonialism, it is impossible to tabulate the exact death toll. Besides, I thought communist nations were more civilized than the capitalist barbarians of the West. ~;)

Quote:

---

[/B]What a joke…:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: 1 million per year. Yeah, this kind of claim proved the seriousness of the study… :laugh4:And I am sure they ate the livers of their victims as well…:smash:
Man, when in a same sentence you find twice “easily” (or for sure), it smells fish…:2thumbsup:

---

Communism has been around as a system of government for how long? Do you want to just do some quick mathematics?

Soviet Union - 60,000,000
Communist China - 40,000,000

We're already at the figure of one hundred million. Add this to Cuba, North Korea, Communist Poland, Cambodia, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, communism in Africa, communism in Latin America...

EDIT: Oh, and about eating livers of their victims, perhaps not, but...

Quote:

---

capitalism is guilty of the millions of Irish dying of starvation because market economy resolves every thing

---

I don't really see how that is.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Recently there was a lot of talk about the Nazis and one member brought up the expulsions of the Germans from Eastern and central Europe. I have never read anything about this, I will admit that I have never found any sympathy with the Germans, the Blitz, Holocaust and other acts always seemed to justify a demonising of the entire nation. A German killed was not as important as the others killed.

However, I recently got talking to a Hungarian-Germn down the road and he told me how the Czechs had expelled him and his family for being ethnic Germans. I had heard about this but said that such actions, although I cannot condone them (I question myself about this part), are understandable. He flew up from his seat and began telling me that what happened to German minorities in Europe was nothing more than racism and a close brother of Nazi ideology, he told me that no only were Germans cleansed via deportation but hat the Czech had also killed thousands of Germans. That they had done all this with the consent of men like Winston Churchill, the men who had claimed to hate Nazism.

I have read a few articles on the expulsion of the German minorities, and I feel rather angry, it was nothing but full blooded racism but has been overlooked becuse it was aimed at the "Germans".
In effect, what the Allies allowed to happen was nothing better than what they had fought.

I'm not really sure of the point to this thread, other than I feel it should be discussed.

---

Regarding the original post; the treatment of ethnic Germans.

I feel that while it was indeed correct to target Nazis, and perhaps any surviving Nazi war criminals should be brought to justice, I don't believe it was the Germans who are to blame for World War II, because Hitler killed dissenters and rivals, who were Germans. There were also attempts by good Germans to overthrow or assassinate Hitler and the Nazis. Like any nation, there were good and bad Germans.

The words German and Nazi have become in some contexts interchangeable when they should never have been. The repudiation of the Nazis exists now and should exist forever. However, when German citizens or people of German heritage are targeted by anti-Nazi groups, that is in the same genus of behavior as that which brought about the Holocaust.

Racism is racism, no matter what the name. People should make an extra effort to be kind to the Germans, because most Germans today are entirely innocent and have been blamed and punished for crimes they never committed.

The crimes of our forefathers are not our responsibility, and the Germans have collectively apologized enough for something they did not do, and bear unnecessary guilt for something they weren't even around to prevent. Should I, as an American, bear guilt for slavery, for example? That makes no sense. I am not the culprit, nor was my family. And if it were different, if they were responsible, how could I possibly be to blame, even in that case?

In my view, even Hitler's surviving family has endured too much. His nieces and nephews who had children weren't responsible, and their children certainly weren't. They all changed their names, settled down, and decided not to procreate, just to ensure nothing of him remains. Sad that someone, anyone, would have to go through that; answering for the worst possible crime ever committed, yet not being responsible for it.

It's time to stop punishing those who did nothing wrong. That's eerily similar to Nazism itself, and similarly unjust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Regarding the original post; the treatment of ethnic Germans.

I feel that while it was indeed correct to target Nazis, and perhaps any surviving Nazi war criminals should be brought to justice, I don't believe it was the Germans who are to blame for World War II, because Hitler killed dissenters and rivals, who were Germans. There were also attempts by good Germans to overthrow or assassinate Hitler and the Nazis. Like any nation, there were good and bad Germans.

The words German and Nazi have become in some contexts interchangeable when they should never have been. The repudiation of the Nazis exists now and should exist forever. However, when German citizens or people of German heritage are targeted by anti-Nazi groups, that is in the same genus of behavior as that which brought about the Holocaust.

Racism is racism, no matter what the name. People should make an extra effort to be kind to the Germans, because most Germans today are entirely innocent and have been blamed and punished for crimes they never committed.

The crimes of our forefathers are not our responsibility, and the Germans have collectively apologized enough for something they did not do, and bear unnecessary guilt for something they weren't even around to prevent. Should I, as an American, bear guilt for slavery, for example? That makes no sense. I am not the culprit, nor was my family. And if it were different, if they were responsible, how could I possibly be to blame, even in that case?

In my view, even Hitler's surviving family has endured too much. His nieces and nephews who had children weren't responsible, and their children certainly weren't. They all changed their names, settled down, and decided not to procreate, just to ensure nothing of him remains. Sad that someone, anyone, would have to go through that; answering for the worst possible crime ever committed, yet not being responsible for it.

It's time to stop punishing those who did nothing wrong. That's eerily similar to Nazism itself, and similarly unjust.

---

^- :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

And there we go. Revolution generally implies bloodshed - and communist revolutions almost always had bloodshed.

---

No, revolution implies radical change, contrary to evolution which implies gradual change. I'm sure you've heard of revolutions in software industry, car industry, science and so on. When it comes to political revolutions, it's about changing the those in power. Those in power rarely give up that power and that's why it comes to bloodshed. That's common for all political revolutions around the world and throughout history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

In colonialism, it is impossible to tabulate the exact death toll. Besides, I thought communist nations were more civilized than the capitalist barbarians of the West. ~;)

---

Not barbarians, just decadent :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Communism has been around as a system of government for how long? Do you want to just do some quick mathematics?

Soviet Union - 60,000,000
Communist China - 40,000,000

We're already at the figure of one hundred million. Add this to Cuba, North Korea, Communist Poland, Cambodia, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, communism in Africa, communism in Latin America...

---

Those links you provided state that it isn't known how much people died in Soviet Unions and that estimates vary from 3.5 to 60 millions. Of course, you assumed that the figure of 60 million is true (somehow I thought you would :juggle2:). And allow me please to have my doubts about anyone having reliable information about death toll during communism in China.

You also mentioned Holodomor. No one knows how many people died during that time and even the most anti-communist historian will tell you that there is no proof that Holodomor ever happened, that is artificially induced famine for the purpose of genocide.

You're combining unreliable data with propaganda under the concept "guilty until proven innocent". Don't be surprised if your arguments don't sound very convincing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

No, revolution implies radical change, contrary to evolution which implies gradual change. I'm sure you've heard of revolutions in software industry, car industry, science and so on. When it comes to political revolutions, it's about changing the those in power. Those in power rarely give up that power and that's why it comes to bloodshed. That's common for all political revolutions around the world and throughout history.

---

The implications that Marx makes are not those of a peaceful revolution. :book:

Quote:

---

Those links you provided state that it isn't known how much people died in Soviet Unions and that estimates vary from 3.5 to 60 millions.

---

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

Sixty million is a fairly commonly accepted figure for the Soviet Union.

Quote:

---

Of course, you assumed that the figure of 60 million is true (somehow I thought you would :juggle2:).

---

Somehow, I assume you would not.

Quote:

---

And allow me please to have my doubts about anyone having reliable information about death toll during communism in China.

---

I didn't take the high point of the death toll of communism in China.

Quote:

---

No one knows how many people died during that time

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wiki

Estimates for the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range between 2.2 million (demographers' estimate) and 3-3.5 million (historians' estimate), and up to 10 million is quoted by the media and cited in political debates.

---

Quote:

---

and even the most anti-communist historian will tell you that there is no proof that Holodomor ever happened

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

You're combining unreliable data with propaganda under the concept "guilty until proven innocent". Don't be surprised if your arguments don't sound very convincing.

---

Also :laugh4:. If anyone is using propaganda, I somehow don't think that person is me. :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Regarding the original post; the treatment of ethnic Germans.

I feel that while it was indeed correct to target Nazis, and perhaps any surviving Nazi war criminals should be brought to justice, I don't believe it was the Germans who are to blame for World War II, because Hitler killed dissenters and rivals, who were Germans. There were also attempts by good Germans to overthrow or assassinate Hitler and the Nazis. Like any nation, there were good and bad Germans.

The words German and Nazi have become in some contexts interchangeable when they should never have been. The repudiation of the Nazis exists now and should exist forever. However, when German citizens or people of German heritage are targeted by anti-Nazi groups, that is in the same genus of behavior as that which brought about the Holocaust.

Racism is racism, no matter what the name. People should make an extra effort to be kind to the Germans, because most Germans today are entirely innocent and have been blamed and punished for crimes they never committed.

The crimes of our forefathers are not our responsibility, and the Germans have collectively apologized enough for something they did not do, and bear unnecessary guilt for something they weren't even around to prevent. Should I, as an American, bear guilt for slavery, for example? That makes no sense. I am not the culprit, nor was my family. And if it were different, if they were responsible, how could I possibly be to blame, even in that case?

In my view, even Hitler's surviving family has endured too much. His nieces and nephews who had children weren't responsible, and their children certainly weren't. They all changed their names, settled down, and decided not to procreate, just to ensure nothing of him remains. Sad that someone, anyone, would have to go through that; answering for the worst possible crime ever committed, yet not being responsible for it.

It's time to stop punishing those who did nothing wrong. That's eerily similar to Nazism itself, and similarly unjust.

---

:bow:

“The words German and Nazi have become in some contexts interchangeable when they should never have been” Oops, careful, you agree with my Communists Grand-Parents, you Red…

“In my view, even Hitler's surviving family has endured too much. His nieces and nephews who had children weren't responsible, and their children certainly weren't. They all changed their names, settled down, and decided not to procreate, just to ensure nothing of him remains. Sad that someone, anyone, would have to go through that; answering for the worst possible crime ever committed, yet not being responsible for it.” There is no justice in this world. But there were not killed, were they?

Ok. Wasn’t Germany which rushed in Recognising Croatia, former Nazi Ally, against the recommendations ob the others Europeans (Fr and UK mainly)? So, yes, Germany today is not responsible for what Germany yesterday did, but some political movement still smell of the good Ost Politic…

“If anyone is using propaganda, I somehow don't think that person is me.” Not alone you mean…
So, all Russians dead were killed by the Communists? Or do we have to add the victims of the Whites to this figure?

“Sixty million is a fairly commonly accepted figure for the Soviet Union.” Accepted by whom? Depends of what you what to show…
We just don’t know. And when you don’t know, figures tend to inflate i.e. “Estimates for the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range between 2.2 million (demographers' estimate) and 3-3.5 million (historians' estimate), and up to 10 million is quoted by the media and cited in political debates.”

“Wars fought and genocides committed specifically "for" Christianity rather than just by nations where the dominant religion was Christianity are two different things” Err, that is why I spoke of South America: the Requerimiento 1513. Convert the Indians by Iron and Fire said the Pope.

“That's if you can blame capitalism for the potato famine.” I can. And once again, I am defending Stalin. The guy was a mass murderer, as Hitler, Genghis Khan, The Tsars and all Despots, Tyrants etc.
This conversation started because somebody compared he Allies (not the Russians, the Allies) to Nazi. I disagree.
Now, I have no problem with Stalin being a monster…
I differ with the political aspect, when people put Nazism and Communist on the same level, which is why I went with the Christian message.
Is Christ responsible for all the Christian slaughters, including between them? Are Marx and Engels responsible for Stalin, and Lenin, and Trotsky, monstrosities?
I would say no, because the message wasn’t to do so.
Hitler’s message was different. It was a message of racism, war and extermination…

“Revolution generally implies bloodshed - and communist revolutions almost always had bloodshed.” Yes they do, but all political revolutions almost always ended in bloodshed (English, American, French, South America, and all continents in fact).
And when a communist leader was legally elected, he was overthrowned by the USA/CIA anyway... So what to do?See Allende...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

The implications that Marx makes are not those of a peaceful revolution. :book:

---

I can only repeat what I said - political revolutions almost always come as a result of fighting. There are only few examples where it wasn't so. Be it a change from capitalism to communism or communism to capitalism, monarchy to republic, republic to monarchy and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

Sixty million is a fairly commonly accepted figure for the Soviet Union.

---

Actually it isn't. You should read that text fully. It cites several historians and estimates vary from 20 millions to 80 millions. Also, it says that the research was conducted in 1988, when Soviet Union still existed and Russian archives were still closed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Somehow, I assume you would not.

---

You're the one who trying to prove a point. You're the one who presents sources in which it is stated that total death toll is unknown and that estimates vary greatly, and then you pick one figure arbitrarily and use it to prove your point. It doesn't work that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

:laugh4:

---

You can laugh as much as you want, but it won't change the facts. Since you like to use wikipedia so much, here is what it says about Holodomor - The reasons for the famine are a subject of current scholarly and political debate: there is no international consensus among scholars or politicians on whether the famine was an unintended consequence of the economic problems associated with radical economic changes implemented during the period of Soviet industrialization.[4][9][11][12][13] or whether the Soviet policies that caused the famine were designed as an attack on Ukrainian nationalism that may fall under the legal definition of genocide,[10][12][13][14][15]

Maybe you're confusing famine with Holodomor. Holodomor implies that famine was induced on purpose. There is no consensus on that. Famine did happen on the other hand, but that's a totally different thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Also :laugh4:. If anyone is using propaganda, I somehow don't think that person is me. :whip:

---

Your vision of communism is heavily influenced by it. The most important difference between communism and nazism, as Brenus said, is that your average communist believed in freedom, equality, social justice, fair distribution of wealth etc... while your average nazi believed in racial supremacy of the aryan race.