"Nazi Fan Boy" Scenarios

[Sergei]

My point is, it doesn't matter at all how everyone is doing today. To insinuate that the Indians were somehow 'liberated' for their own good is laughable.

[slysniper]

One again, with little effort of someone who did not know better than to start this topic. The forum has been used to discuss the politics of how we view the countries that were at war. How history is twisted and our views are distorted. How some feel it is their duty to try to right the wrongs of the past and help all the rest of us see it straight. My question is, is this all that is going to be discussed at this site anymore?

And surely lets not forget all the comments about how wargaming is not just wargaming. It is a tool for Nazi recruiting, for US propaganda, or whatever, and surely it is. Maybe so, but for the vast majority of us it is just that, wargaming, and it gets old listening to the warning voice of Nazi’s around the corner wanting to brainwash me as I play the game.

What is amazing to me is this seems to be the treads that you all want to join in on and how the site has become more of this than with issues of the game and how to play and make it better. I would have enjoyed seeing a post of the top 20 games that portray the eastern front battles most correctly by some of the knowledgeable players. Instead of seeing them waste their time, slamming the work of others that are doing what they could in the hobby with what skills they have.

We are not all born with such in depth knowledge as to just create perfect scenario’s that meet the standards of some like JasonC, which I wish would come out and tell us all what his motivation is to continue to write lengthy comment after comment at this forum. Jason, some have asked you why not write a book, you have a strong desire to teach tactics and explain history as you have interpreted it. Why waste your efforts here when you could influence many more people than those that just play this game. Please explain, I just do not get it.

In all, I am just wanting to say, I wish that those that put their time here in at the forum would think of ways to promote the hobby, help make it more enjoyable for others and learn to help raise other gamers up in the hobby. The discussions on tactics and proper play and helping newbies understand the game are great and many efforts have been done in these endeavors, but stop undoing the good with this type of tread that does so much to damage the interest and involvement of so many that are just trying to enjoy the hobby.

[ April 13, 2006, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: slysniper ]

[Abbott]

Andreas, I am glad you took my comment as it was intended. You always seem to conduct yourself as a gentleman even when we disagree. I was not attempting to lump you into a category other then “well read and willing to share your knowledge” such as our other grogs do on occasion.

I will drop you an e-mail considering the scenario you mentioned. Thanks.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by JasonC:

And certainly in terms of way of life, present justice, knowledge, wealth, etc, they are vastly better off today than anyone on the continent was 300 years ago.

Maybe in your opinion. Personally I find today’s civilization difficult at best. However I have family members who have adapted much better then I have. I take comfort in the fact that the earth will likely cleanse itself some day in the distant future.

I agree with your assessment of the ferocity that was shown by Native Americans at times. Torture of prisoners and those conquered was common place by many tribes but not all of them, as you seem to put forth. It was part of many Native cultures and was based on reasoning that you may or may not be aware of. Have you eaten any dog today? Dog will be eaten on the Pineridge Reservation today.

I see you extended your remarks. I also note that you are spending rather of lot of time and effort on politics, all of it utterly irrelevant to the subject matter of the thread, and despite protestations that it doesn't concern you. I also find it highly amusing that PC nonsense about Americans exercises you no end, while admitted and existent Nazi fanboys are water off a duck's back, you just ignore them.

At times I also find humor in some of your posts. I often find your attitude towards what you call Nazi Fanboys very humorous but usually refrain from saying so due to your sensitive nature.

I don’t find fault in your lack of social skills, as I seem to possess the same failing to some others on these Forums, so I try to understand. I do give you credit for your research skills and the fact that you freely post some excellent information for us all to enjoy on a regular basis regardless of what I consider your overwhelming and simple-minded prejudice.

Nazi fanboys are water off a duck's back, you just ignore them.

Yes I do.

At the time, some no doubt lost entirely modest items of personal property that bulked large because of grinding poverty. A horse, a rifle, a tent. This is not a recommendation for grinding poverty as a way of life.

A rifle, horses and buffalo hides were wealth.

They could go ranch or hunt if they want, today, nobody is stopping them.

The times have stopped them; the government has stopped them. Lack of wealth has stopped them. There are many people who cannot afford to ranch or hunt because the law of the land has regulated it beyond their financial means. Have you priced any ranches lately? Around here they go for about $1 million to $65 million. However if you are wealthy enough to own your own ranch then you can hunt year round without regulation. Just like the Native Americans used to do on their own land.

Just deciphering the gun laws and hunting regulations in my area alone is an almost impossible task.

Last year I was fined over $600.00 for picking up feathers off of the highway from a bird that had been hit and killed by a tractor-trailer, what a surprise that was. The judge flat out told me I was not getting the feathers back at court and gleefully entered it as a criminal offense on my record. To me, I was just picking up some feathers for my wife (you know, my squaw).

I guess. Not clear to me your average squaw

I will not tell you what I really think of you for that filthy comment other then say that you are completely out of your depth or flat out do not care who you insult.

If anyone prefers the precarious freedom of the former, however, they have only to travel to war torn central Africa and they can have all of it they can stomach.

As above I do find some of your posts humorous. Will you foot the bill to relocate the entire tribe to lands that do not belong to them? As far as nobody owned any land that is only in your imagination. Tribal members did not own tribal land; the land belonged to the tribe as a whole. Tribal territories and hunting grounds were fiercely guarded as survival of the tribe depended upon them. Instead of sending people to Africa why don’t you try leaving your city. You are welcome to visit here and you can maybe see (a little bit) of what you obviously do not comprehend of what little is left of an outdoor life.

So what, please, has supposedly been lost let alone taken?

That appears to be beyond your ability to understand. I would suggest you educate yourself by reading a few tribal histories written by Native Americans.

Let's consider it reasonably, without the flip romantic hyperbole. What did individual concrete natives lose, or lack now compared to then?

Their lands, their families and their way of life. You suggest that "your way of life" that replaced theirs is superior so it is ok to eliminate what they knew. Thanks for educating us savages Jason.

[ April 13, 2006, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[JasonC]

They weren't liberated. They were barbarians who deserved defeat and got it, and who were better off assimilated to a superior culture. Yes I said a superior culture. Cultures aren't equal. There is more justice for them today because the society they came from had practically none, there is more wealth for them today for the same reason. Most did not want to lose their power, some resisted it violently, killed and were killed in consequence. But all they lost thereby was the ability to murder people, which they are well rid of. They were not all killed, they are still here. They are not powerless, they are citizens of a just society instead of warriors of an unjust one.

[JasonC]

You can buy a rifle for $200. You can buy a horse or better these days a car or truck cheaply enough. You can do lot better than buffalo skins. There is no shortage of any of them, haven't been lost. Families aren't gone either, they are right here, more than there were 300 years ago.

As for affording ranches, I thought you said all the land was communally owned. Right? There is gobs of it owned by tribal organizations. Go have a meeting to OK it, and ranch it. If that isn't what others want to do, whose decision is that? Also, nobody gives me a house. Individuals have to earn things if they want to individually own them, big whoop.

As for my knowledge outdoor life, I climb mountains and run marathons and bike. New Hampshire White mountains and Arizona red rock country are my favorites, especially the latter. (In high summer, you'll find me in the Whites). What I don't do is romanticize a form of existence that can support only 1% of the current human race, and in great hardship at that.

I do notice your reference to cleansing the earth of its cancerous humanity. Green Nazi fanboys long for a mass dieback to hunter-gatherer existence. Their ignorant regulations have already killed about 500 million human beings e.g. through preventable malaria deaths alone, dwarfing the human toll from Nazism and Communism. It isn't held against them because it is indirect, but that vague "cleanse earth" sentiment masks real ongoing megadeath today. And it is obscene.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by JasonC:

They weren't liberated. They were barbarians who deserved defeat and got it, and who were better off assimilated to a superior culture. Yes I said a superior culture. Cultures aren't equal. There is more justice for them today because the society they came from had practically none, there is more wealth for them today for the same reason. Most did not want to lose their power, some resisted it violently, killed and were killed in consequence. But all they lost thereby was the ability to murder people, which they are well rid of. They were not all killed, they are still here. They are not powerless, they are citizens of a just society instead of warriors of an unjust one.

I haven't really followed this debate much, because it seems silly, to put it plainly. But this comment, from a vehement anti Nazi, just strikes me as typifying the mentality that he opposes.

Red barbarians, anyone?

[Sergei]

Great reasoning, Jason. I suppose you don't see any other ways of "civilizing" the barbarians than killing them off and putting survivors behind barbed wire - goes a great way to demonstrate the moral superiority of your culture!

[Abbott]

Originally posted by JasonC:

They weren't liberated. They were barbarians who deserved defeat and got it, and who were better off assimilated to a superior culture. Yes I said a superior culture.

Spoken like a true Nazi Fanboy. Maybe you can round up the rest of those peoples whom are beneath you and civilize them as well.

[JasonC]

Anyone who thinks the thing wrong with the Nazis is that they were Americans is a deluded fool, playing at rhetoric without thinking.

On another fellow's wish that people actually discuss CM, I second it, and have been. Didn't start this thread, and didn't bring up the ridiculous native American crap.

Instead I gave detailed reviews of 3 scenarios and had a productive interchange with the author of one of them, in which we agreed on pretty much every point.

As for getting more on my views on scenario designs and tactics, I posted 3 different campaign or scenario packs in the past week, on Uranus, Ponryi/Kursk northern, and 1SS First Day/Kursk southern. A few people asked for an got the Ponryi one and I'm playing it with one fellow as well. Got maybe 2 comments on the other two combined.

The desire to instead have lengthy political arguments not about CM, or worse still to argue about me, does not originate from this side of my monitor screen. I invite any and all comments on each of the three series, better still AARs or questions about them. If instead the PC numnuts regale us with their moral disdain for the cause of all the freedom and justice they have ever known, I'll never get tired. It won't even delay the Operation Kutuzov (aka the Orel offensive) scenario pack, coming soon.

[Joachim]

Jason,

the American natives lost their rights back then. They had an alternative way of living that can not be evaluated by Western standards.

Please tell me the amount of cases where American Indians killed and tortured people outside of the Americas. Why did settlers enter their land?

The likelihood of getting killed when searching for their food drastically improved after the arrival of white settlers. It is beyond doubt that the European settlers in the Americas had no ownership of any land in the Americas - the Indians were there earlier.

There were more than 500 nations in the US alone. Stating that all of them were barbarians is a bit tough. Interesting link is this site: http://www.danielnpaul.com/BritishScalpProclamation-1756.html

Seems the Settlers acted as barbaric as the Natives. "Only a dead Indian is a good Indian"? "Trail of tears"? Treaties broken when more land was necessary? Wars started when Indians "attacked" - often after settlers invaded their land - their land according to "treaties" signed by the US government. Of course the settlers wrote history and who attacked. No written history of bands of drunken whites looking for some f*** attacking first? Of course - Indians did not write in English and if they did their archives did not survive the next war they lost.

Please tell me if by US laws I am allowed to kill the family of somebody who killed a friend of mine. To my knowledge, this is not allowed. Yet the US army and civilians had no trouble in killing women and children. Oh yes, they had taken part by standing by when torture happened in their villages. But there were acts of cruelty on both sides....

This happened in Poland after '39, too - Germans were mutilated and not only after they died. It happened in other occupied countries, too. The Germans retaliated. Barbaric acts against them in '40 (or later) don't justify their invasion in '39.

Baldur von Schirach or Heinrich Himmler considered Poland to be an inferior culture. There were plans on how the Poles should live after Germany had completely settled Poland. Schirach and Himmler thought the Poles would be better of afterwards.

Hitler after victory over Russia in '47:

"They weren't liberated. They were Untermenschen who deserved defeat and got it, and who were better off assimilated to a superior culture. Yes I said a superior culture. Cultures aren't equal. There is more justice for them today because the society they came from had practically none, there is more wealth for them today for the same reason. Most did not want to lose their power, some resisted it violently, killed and were killed in consequence. But all they lost thereby was the ability to murder people, which they are well rid of. They were not all killed, they are still here. They are not powerless, they are citizens of a führer-based society instead of comrades of an communist one."

Gruß

Joachim

PS: Jason - you are now officially on my Nazi list. You might fight Nazis, but you share their ideas.

[ April 13, 2006, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Joachim ]

[Abbott]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I do notice your reference to cleansing the earth of its cancerous humanity.

Yes, I do have great respect for Mother Earth. I am beginning to think that if your mother puts you to bed before what you consider your bedtime that you would consider her a “Nazi Fanboy” as well.

[JasonC]

"Maybe you can round up the rest of those peoples whom are beneath you and civilize them as well."

All good things in time...

[Krautman]

Jason, your opinion on barbarism and cultural superiority surely is somewhat special. Maybe the Indians are better of the way they are now, but the process of getting there was extremely painful -consider e.g. flu, booze and reservations- and they probably would've preferred to stay the way they were. I'd recommend some Louise Erdrich novels, especially Tracks .

EDIT: stuff deleted

[ April 13, 2006, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Krautman ]

[zmoney]

This is crazy. The Irish and Scot’s got horrible treatment from the British but no one seems to think that was racist. The Romans defeated the Gaul’s and that doesn’t seem to be considered racist. But some how the Indians losing to the US is racist? Most Europeans live on land today that were not their ancestors native lands so should we try to find the rightful owners and move all Europeans back to were they came from? Do not most “White Russians” come from Scandinavia? Aren’t they descendants of Vikings? So we will have to move all of them out of the Ukraine because even though all this took place like 1000 years ago it’s still unjust and I’m sure the steppe people would much rather go back to the old ways of 1000 years ago. Hell I doubt most people would even know how to survive. Come on get serious.

My point is; war is war and the weaker side loses. Jason and myself are just telling facts and if your best come back is to say that we are racist then you are foolish.

War happens, it sucks for the loser. But people today are better off and that is fact.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by zmoney:

Most Europeans live on land today that were not their ancestors native lands so should we try to find the rightful owners and move all Europeans back to were they came from?

No, what makes you jump into such conclusion? Was someone talking of any such thing? If not, then you're just being silly and might as well talk to my hand.

The people who were living back then were discriminated against and their ways of life were destroyed. Admitting that is not a matter of debt. It's about being honest to facts.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by zmoney:

My point is; war is war and the weaker side loses. Jason and myself are just telling facts and if your best come back is to say that we are racist then you are foolish.

War happens, it sucks for the loser. But people today are better off and that is fact.

a) Who defines "better off"? Is it just because I have more money? Cause I am able to live longer?

What would you say if the Nazis won? Would you support them? What would be your best come back? Doing as the winners do?

c) Vae victis. But you can't really win if you act that way - except if you exterminate or oppress the losers. Removing any history written from their point of view helps, too.

d) Guess few people live on their ancestors land. Some can trace it back a few hundred years. Others have books stating they were there 2000 years ago. It doesn't matter where you live and whose land it was - it does matter what you do/did to those that lived there before you, how you got the land and if you can change a thing.

It is impossible to change te past - but it matters how you tell history and how you excuse the dirty deeds done. Some people use really cheap excuses - the guilt of the enemy or stating that you think they are better of now (proven by your standards) is not a good excuse.

e) I'm German. I can't do anything to revive any victim of the Holocaust or WW2. I did nothing wrong then as I was born much later. I don't feel any guilt. But I feel some moral responsibility to never let things like that happen again. And I feel a moral obligation to the dead - not to use any cheap excuses for their suffering.

Gruß

Joachim

[JasonC]

Krautman - you are welcome to attempt genocide against the modern world any time you like, (or to step off a cliff, come to that). We'll just see you off too. Don't need your agreement.

As for your "we are all doomed" prognostications, does Pascal persuade you with his wager? Allegations are cheap.

On the favorite issue de jour, please point me to the power budget that keeps the earth glowing 5C hotter. Or answer this entry level physics quiz -

a column of water 2 km long covered by a black body is in thermal equilibrium with its exterior environment at 291K. The measured power at its surface is 300 watts per square meter. A new power source is then added of 2 watts per square meter at one end of the water column.

(a) what is the heat capacity of the water column?

( what is the instantaneous rate of change in the average temperature of the water the moment the new power is applied?

© how long would it take to raise the average water temperature 1K at that rate, ignoring restoring forces for now?

(d) if no other changes are made and assuming the water is thermally well mixed, which of the following describes the overall future trajectory of the water's average temperature -

1. it will go to infinity in finite time.

2. it will rise indefintely at a constant rate.

3. it will rapidly fall to absolute zero.

4. it will remain unchanged.

5. it will rise at a slowing rate to a new equilibrium level, approaching that level asymptotically

(e) What physical law describes the additional effect that will operate on the water's average temperature?

1. law of entropy increase

2. conservation of energy

3. Stefan-Boltzman radiation law

4. adiabatic expansion

5. the "waxy buildup" theory

(f) According to the S-B radiation law, the power output of a glowing black body is what function of its absolute temperature in degrees K?

1. third root

2. exponential

3. fourth power

4. inverse square

5. linear

(g) Calculate the average water temperature at the new, elevated power level at which its re-radiation equals the total power input.

(h) At the temperature calculated in (g), the future course of the water's mean temperature would be which of the following?

1. steady state, equilibrium

2. rise continually

3. fall continually

4. go to infinity in finite time

5. go to absolute zero in finite time

(i) If the instantaneous rate of change when the power is first applied is as calculated in (, and the that rate at the new higher temperature is as implied by (h), a decent approximation of the average rate of change over the period between them is -

1. answer to ( plus answer in (h) divided by 2.

2. answer to ( time answer in (h)

3. zero

4. infinity, the temperature change is instantaneous

(j) at the estimated average rate of change in (i), what is the period of time before the temperature rises (most of the way) to its new level?

(k) someone alleges that the average temperature of the water column will rise from 291 to 296K within 100 years. A reasonable response to this claim would be

1. where are you going to get the power?

2. it can't possibly warm that fast with so little power input

3. someone in a red hat appointed by a pope says it, so it must be true

4. regression lines through short periods of noisy data are more trustworthy than such calculations, so it is almost certainly true

5. everything is connected to everything else, and some systems are sensitive and non-linear, so anything might happen and probably will

6. we must pray to Gaia to forgive our rape of sacred mother earth

(l) someone acknowledges (k) but alleges that as yet unspecified new power terms caused by hidden feedback mechanisms might conjure up the missing power. A reasonable response to this claim might be which of the following?

1. Ok. Where? What are the new power terms? What are their magnitudes and signs?

2. If most of the power is to come from some other cause, in what sense is the original 2 watts the cause of the predicted change?

3. If a complicated nonlinear system with such massive feedbacks is a correct model, then why don't its ongoing fluctuations, larger than the 2 watts actually seen, set off equally large sustained fluctuations, randomly? If they do, why is the predicted direction any more likely than the opposite?

4. Well then it must be so. Let's do everything possible to reduce that 2W to 1.97 W within 20 years, lest catastrophy ensue.

5. All but 4.

If you ace it, we can talk physical specifics reasonably. If you can't ace it, well...

[ April 13, 2006, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[JasonC]

What would you say if the Nazis won?

What I already say - Nazi Punks, **** Off.

The only thing wrong with the Nazis is they lost, is an argument in favor of Nazism and against all morality. And it is not the argument I am making, it is the argument being made by those arguing against me.

People who see no moral difference but only a difference in relative success, between the US and the Nazis, do not thereby condemn the US. They thereby excuse the Nazis.

There is a moral difference, and they refuse to acknowledge it, because there are men in the modern world who will do anything and say anything rather than admit there are real moral differences.

If the problem with the Nazis is that they were Americans, then war to the death against Americans is the duty of every human being. Anyone care to stand up for that proposition? Cause we always want new additions to the target set.

[Sirocco]

You argue that the Native Indians were untermensch, then rail against the Nazis? :confused:

[zmoney]

No one ever said Indians were sub human. I believe he said they were barbarians.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by zmoney:

No one ever said Indians were sub human. I believe he said they were barbarians.

The words "barbarians" and "superior culture" fit into the same milieu.

[JasonC]

Burke really disposed of the whole genre over two centuries ago. But nobody listens to mere reason.

"They find themselves obliged to rake into the histories of former ages (which they have ransacked with a malignant and profligate industry) for every instance of oppression and persecution which has been made by that body or in its favor, in order to justify, upon very iniquitous, because very illogical, principles of retaliation, their own persecutions, and their own cruelties. After destroying all other genealogies and family distinctions, they invent a sort of pedigree of crimes.

"It is not very just to chastise men for the offences of their natural ancestors: but to take the fiction of ancestry in a corporate succession, as a ground for punishing men who have no relation to guilty acts, except in names and general descriptions, is a sort of refinement in injustice belonging to the philosophy of this enlightened age. The Assembly punishes men, many, if not most of whom abhor the violent conduct of ecclesiatics in former times as much as their present persecuters can do, and who would be as loud and as strong in the expression of that sense, if they were not well aware of the purposes for which this declamation is employed.

"Corporate bodies are immortal for the good of the members, but not for their punishment. Nations themselves are such corporations. As well might we think of waging inexpiable war upon all Frenchmen for the evils which they have brought upon us in the several periods of our mutual hostilities. You might, on your part, think yourselves justified in falling upon all Englishmen on account of the unparalleled calamities brought upon the people of France by the unjust invasions of our Henries and our Edwards. Indeed we should be mutually justified in this exterminatory war upon each other, full as much as you are in the unprovoked persecution of your present countrymen, on account of the conduct of men of the same name in former times.

"We do not draw the moral lessons we might from history. On the contrary, without care it can be used to vitiate our minds and to destroy our happiness. In history a great volume is unrolled for our instruction, drawing the materials of future wisdom from the past errors and infirmitie of mankind. It may, in the perversion, serve for a magazine, furnishing offensive and defensive weapons for parties in church and state, and supplying the means of keeping alive, or of reviving, dissensions and animosities, and adding fuel to civil fury.

History consists, for the better part, of the miseries brought upon the world by pride, ambition, avarice, revenge, lust, sedition, hypocrisy, ungoverned zeal, and all the train of disorderly appetites, which shake the public with the same troublous stoms that toss the private estate, and render life unsweet.

"These vices are the *causes* of those storms. Religion, morals, laws, prerogatives, privileges, liberties, rights of men, are the *pretexts*. The pretexts are always found in some specious appearance of a real good. You would not secure men from tyranny and sedition, by rooting out of the mind the principles to which these fraudulent pretexts apply. If you did, you would remove everything that is valuable from the human brest.

"As these are the pretexts, so the ordinary actors and instruments in great public evils are kings, priests, magistrates, senates, parliaments, national assemblies, judges, and captains. You would not cure the evil by resolving, that there should be no more monarchs, nor ministers of state, nor of the gospel; no interpreters of law; no general officers, no public councils. You might change the names. The things in some shape must remain. A certain quantum of power must always exist in the community, in some hands, under some appellation.

"Wise men will apply their remedies to vices, not to names; to causes of evil which are permanent, not to the occasional organs by which they act, and the transient modes in which they appear. Otherwise you will be wise historically, a fool in practice. Seldom have two ages the same fashion in their pretexts and in their modes of mischief.

Wickedness is a little more inventive. Whilst you are discussing fashion, the fashion is gone by. The very same vice assumes a new body. The spirit transmigrates, and far from losing its principle of life by the change of its appearance, it is renovated in its new organs with the fresh vigor of a juvenile activity. It walks abroad, it continues its ravages, whilst you are gibbeting the carcase, or demolishing the tomb. You are terrifying yourselves with ghosts and apparitions, whilst your house is a haunt of robbers.

"It is thus with all those who, attending only to the shell and husk of history, think they are waging war with intolerance, pride, and cruelty, whilst, under the color of abhoring the ill principles of antiquated parties, they are authorizing and feeding the same odious vices in different factions, and perhaps in worse...

"But those who will stand upon that elevation of reason which places centuries under the eye, and brings things to the true point of comparison, which obscures little names, and effaces the colors of little parties, and to which nothing can ascend but the spirit and moral quality of human actions, will say to the teachers of the Palais Royal - the Cardinal of Lorraine was the murderer of the 16th century, you have the glory of being the murderers of the 18th; and this is the only difference between you." - Burke

[JasonC]

Sirocco - yes burning captives alive for amusement is morally inferior. Yes cutting of the tops of the heads of civilians wherever you can find them and wearing their anatomy as ornament is morally inferior. Yes a society without a state or law, in which any angry man can murder anyone he likes with the active assistance of others is morally inferior. All those things being done away with and replaced by law and decency and peace, are morally preferable. That war is necessary to convince men so behaving to cease and desist, is simply the most massive moral fact in human history, and resistence to it is moral blindness. Taming murderous savages by force if necessary is not gassing inoffensive civilians, and pretending it is, is obscene moral blindless. The active violence of men willing to restrain themselves by law, against those unwilling to do so, is the cause of civilization and of every scrap of decency you have ever known. "But if everweebody would just be nice too each of-er" - but they won't. Some burn others alive for sport, some gas submissive citizens out of insane hatreds. You stop them by violence or you live in hell.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by JasonC:

What would you say if the Nazis won?

What I already say - Nazi Punks, **** Off.

Much easier now as they didn't win.

The only thing wrong with the Nazis is they lost, is an argument in favor of Nazism and against all morality. And it is not the argument I am making, it is the argument being made by those arguing against me.

Try to read what those arguing against you write. I can't find anybody stating that in this thread.

What I do find is this:

My point is; war is war and the weaker side loses. Jason and myself are just telling facts and if your best come back is to say that we are racist then you are foolish. (zmoney)

IMO this would be a nice statement a Nazi could use if the Nazis had won - or for a Nazi committing crimes in occupied territories (or vs the Jews).

People who see no moral difference but only a difference in relative success, between the US and the Nazis, do not thereby condemn the US. They thereby excuse the Nazis.

Nonsense. Condemnation of a nation does not excuse deeds done by another nation. The "relative" guilt might change, but the "absolute" guilt stays the same. IMO it is the absolute guilt that counts. Thus no condemnation of anybody will excuse the Nazis. The existence of another villain does not excuse being a villain.

If you are targetting me with the sentence above: I see a moral difference between the US during WW2 and the Nazis during WW2. I am not so sure this moral difference exists between _all_ citizens of the US and the Nazis. Read: There do exist US citizens that are as disgusting/morally corrupted (... insert whatever you wish here) as the Nazis were. Same holds for most nations, any time.

There is a moral difference, and they refuse to acknowledge it, because there are men in the modern world who will do anything and say anything rather than admit there are real moral differences.

If the problem with the Nazis is that they were Americans, then war to the death against Americans is the duty of every human being. Anyone care to stand up for that proposition? Cause we always want new additions to the target set.

Trying to make yourself a victim? Hey, you were on the winning side in the wars mentioned in this thread. Don't try to evade into war on terrorism, Islamism or anything - you are no more on the target set in this war than me.

Joachim