Humanity is humanity, it's chock full-o-stupid fucks. Twas ever thus.
But in WWII, somehow they rallied everybody to KILL NAZIS.
I can't credit Pearl Harbor, that was the Japanese.
But somehow, people gave up sons, lovers, nylons, chocolate, etc. etc,. ad infinitum in order to WIPE OUT FUCKING NAZIS.
Now we have a nazi president and nazis marching in the street on the 75h anniversary of D Day.
How in the everloving fuck did they manage to get everybody on the right page back then?
First of all, every country had different reasons to fight the Germans, and not all were noble... sure, the neighbouring countries fought them for their territory and survival, while others it was just an opportunistic way to establish military/economic hegemony.
Then theres the other aspect of moulding the citizenry to be submissive and ignorant, but thats a whole other story.
Quote from: kiss my axe on June 14, 2019, 12:07:28 AM
Humanity is humanity, it's chock full-o-stupid fucks. Twas ever thus.
But in WWII, somehow they rallied everybody to KILL NAZIS.
I can't credit Pearl Harbor, that was the Japanese.
But somehow, people gave up sons, lovers, nylons, chocolate, etc. etc,. ad infinitum in order to WIPE OUT FUCKING NAZIS.
Now we have a nazi president and nazis marching in the street on the 75h anniversary of D Day.
How in the everloving fuck did they manage to get everybody on the right page back then?
Pearl Harbor. Most of the country was dead set against getting in the war ahead of that.
Most of the Nazi-killing was done by the Soviets, and for them, it was a matter of fending off an invasion.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but keeping the Russians from winning
too much (and taking over Europe) was a significant motivation in the American participation in the war in Europe. You weren't actually there to fight for democracy and freedom, regardless of what the propaganda posters said.
In terms of war deaths (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties), you Americans barely qualify as participants, in either absolute numbers, or as a percentage of population.
Quote from: The Johnny on June 14, 2019, 12:31:43 AM
while others it was just an opportunistic way to establish military/economic hegemony.
^QFT.
I heard it had something to do with the Rothschild's but that was just a rumor
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on June 14, 2019, 12:59:37 AM
Most of the Nazi-killing was done by the Soviets, and for them, it was a matter of fending off an invasion.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but keeping the Russians from winning too much (and taking over Europe) was a significant motivation in the American participation in the war in Europe. You weren't actually there to fight for democracy and freedom, regardless of what the propaganda posters said.
Well, yeah. The nightmare idea was the Soviets piling past Paris.
The thing to realize is that humans are tiny, brutish things motivated almost entirely by fear and greed. D&D goblins, really: small and ruthless and shortsighted and ugly from skin to rotten, wormy core.
Nobody gave anything up to fight the Nazis that they weren't already giving up anyway. They clutched at what they already had out of fear of losing it, whether from personal risk or from propaganda-implanted FUD. They clutched at what they didn't have, to try and secure it. That was it, that was all.
Remember, Hitler was motivated in no small part by American laws and the American eugenics movement. The "degeneracy" of Weimar Germany's sexual revolution was a thing to fan the flames, the "fear" of these weirdo freaks "corrupting" the populace. Much of the Nazi support that wasn't outright fear was definite greed: ask all the Aryan supermen who stole Jewish businesses.
This is happening again because the same pieces are in play in the same places. Yeah, our money is still meaningful to some extent. It was, you have to understand, never an economic problem that caused the Nazis to rise to power, it was fear and greed. And fear and greed was what stomped them out, too.
If you want to find motivations to work with, to repeat that small good part of that section of history, start with those.
Quote from: nullified on June 14, 2019, 04:41:26 AM
The thing to realize is that humans are tiny, brutish things motivated almost entirely by fear and greed.
Gonna disagree. Humans are - in their natural state - very, very small. 2,000,000 years of conditioning tell us to follow the loudest guy.
It's a firmware issue. It worked fine when food was scarce and primal enemies hunted us.
It doesn't work so well anymore. It is a perfectly good op code for constant threats. It is less useful when there is no immediate physical threat.
Well, they didn't rally a lot of central Europeans, or the Japanese.
And we had to lock up an awful lot of sympathizers as a potential threat to the state when war was declared.
After it was revealed the Nazis were literally herding people into gas chambers, they became a lot less popular. But especially in the interwar years, fascism was seen as a useful bulwark against Communist influence both nationally and internationally.
I'm sure I don't need to talk about Ford, Prescott Bush etc.
I'm also sure it's not escaped anyone's notice that after a massive financial crisis which basically destroyed a generation's earning potential, impoverished millions and saw the primary architects not prosecuted (while increasing their wealth), socialist and anarchist political positions gained a lot more traction. And then a whole bunch of Nazis rolled up, because that's what always happened.
It's even how it happened in Nazi Germany. Members of the Prussian military-aristocratic elite, (Hindenburg, von Papen, von Schleicher) all thought they could play Hitler while using his popularity to crush the SPD and KPD (socialist and communist parties, respectively). The problem was Hitler was too canny and...well, the rest is history.
And then of course after the war the Nazis never really went away. The CIA snatched up a bunch, as did the KGB (the CIA's bunch also may have been reporting to the KGB, but that's another story for another day). They were then deployed to every dirty warzone in South America and the Middle East where reds needed to be beaten down. They even founded their own arms company, "Merex AG" which played a pivotal role in arming third world regimes and providing training to their security services.
Meanwhile, Nazis who got out prison started founding new parties, recruiting more people. With the fear of the potential Communist invasion of Europe, some of these "commited anti-communists" were rolled into the stay-behind units intended to undertake sabotage and assassination in the event the Soviets ever passed the Fulda Gap. But, well, you know what happens when you give Nazis guns and paramilitary training....they called it the "Years of Lead" in Italy, and it involved some of the largest terrorist attacks in European history. In France they had the OAS, notorious for their experience with plastic explosives. Belgium is it's own level of weirdness but Westlands New Post and the "Brabant Killers", if they are not the same, deserve some mention.
Nazism never went away. It just kept a lower profile.
The funny thing about everything is that its almost consensus that everyone hates Nazis, but that doesnt mean people dislike authoritarianism.
Seriously not trying to be a snob, but its important to think of it within the framework of authoritarianism and totalitarianism:
Fascism, nazism, and XXth century Mao and soviet communism all were totalitarian... meanwhile in different degrees, Franco's spain, Brasil, Argentina, the USA and Mexico have had authoritarian tendencies.
So its a number of bad signaling/communication that people nowadays are using... like im pretty sure most of us here in the forum emphatize with anti-fascism movement, but its misnamed, cause Fascism was specifically Mussolini's italian thing and he died like what? almost 80 years ago? Fascism is over... the accusing someone of being a Nazi is an easy insult to convey a number of things, like racism and authoritarianism but its incorrect cause no official Nazi party exists since, again, 80ish years ago.
The distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism is highly contested, but one can distinguish one from the other because totalitarianism even tho its always authoritarian, has qualities that the other one doesnt have, which is the motivation to have one unique ideology fronting it... so by todays standard, totalitarianism only exists in China, and even some arabian states dont qualify, because theyre more like absolute despotic monarchies.
The thing with authoritarianism is that its not incompatible with "democracy" nor capitalism, and thus, it doesnt show up in most peoples radar and its implications... like, i dont think the USA or Russia will become totalitarian any time soon, but theyre clearly authoritarian, their respective presidents have accumulated so much power that it fits the description.
The root of the problem is the enabling of authoritarianism, the lack of distribution of power and the lack of proper checks and balances.
Please read Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism before you talk about Fascism as if it was just Mussolini.
It's not that you're entirely wrong, it's that you're confusing two similar but distinct terms. Like talking about how democracy hasn't existed since the Roman Empire destroyed the power of the Greek city-states, because Athens was the only Democracy. It's not entirely wrong, but it misses the point, hard.
In the same way, neo-Nazis are in fact not Nazis if you specifically use Nazis to refer to the members of the NSDAP. But they are no different in how they work or their beliefs than the NSDAP's membership, so calling them Nazis isn't really wrong either.
The only reason I'm making a big deal out of this is that modern fascists and Nazis have made a whole cottage industry out of semantic nitpicking of that very form. To the point that 9 times out of 10, someone who says there aren't Nazis anymore probably agrees with the Nazis we have now in some way. It's a dog whistle, of sorts, and you are now aware of both why it is wrong, and why it is worth correcting.
I think modern Nazis are more the result of
"Everyone I don't like is a racist.
Hitler, a known Nazi, was a racist.
Racists are like Hitler.
Racists are Nazis.
Everyone I don't like is a Nazi."
No, it really isn't.
Is it still considered racist if you hate the entire human race?
Quote from: rong on June 14, 2019, 07:06:39 PM
Is it still considered racist if you hate the entire human race?
Only if you hate some races more than others. If you hate all humans equally, you're fine.
Johnny, you appear to be under the misapprehension that a) Fascism and neo-Nazism are just variants of totalitarianism with distinct characterstics, as opposed to actual political ideologies and programs with strong thematic and philosophical similarities and b) that there are not clear links between today's neofascist organisations and those that were founded in the interwar period.
I was more elaborating on addressing the OP than to the other subsequent responses, in the sense that despite what Trump says and does, he is not a Nazi, and despite American tendencies against Nazism, it does not equate with them not liking the centralization and abuse of power.
And yes, my understanding is far from an expert opinion, which is why i appreciate nullifieds point on semantics.
A) From what ive read which can be wrong, the main category is authoritarianism, and a subset of authoritarianism would be totalitarianism, subset in which fascism, nazism and communism fit into.
B) Its not that, its just that "nazi" and "fascist" to me seem like they are thrown around too easily as a tag, and subsequently when its used appropiately it just gets dismissed as an exaggeration.
But i still think i make good points, i need to review my definition of "fascist", but Trump is not a "nazi" and if you show me that he actually is ill eat my words and my shirt alongside them.
Quote from: nullified on June 14, 2019, 04:47:24 PM
Please read Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism before you talk about Fascism as if it was just Mussolini.
It's not that you're entirely wrong, it's that you're confusing two similar but distinct terms. Like talking about how democracy hasn't existed since the Roman Empire destroyed the power of the Greek city-states, because Athens was the only Democracy. It's not entirely wrong, but it misses the point, hard.
In the same way, neo-Nazis are in fact not Nazis if you specifically use Nazis to refer to the members of the NSDAP. But they are no different in how they work or their beliefs than the NSDAP's membership, so calling them Nazis isn't really wrong either.
The only reason I'm making a big deal out of this is that modern fascists and Nazis have made a whole cottage industry out of semantic nitpicking of that very form. To the point that 9 times out of 10, someone who says there aren't Nazis anymore probably agrees with the Nazis we have now in some way. It's a dog whistle, of sorts, and you are now aware of both why it is wrong, and why it is worth correcting.
Doesn't matter if they say they aren't actual Nazis if they are actual Nazis. The only difference is they don't have the snappy Hugo Boss uniforms.
So they're just low rent Nazis. Shabby.
Quote from: The Johnny on June 14, 2019, 08:20:23 PM
I was more elaborating on addressing the OP than to the other subsequent responses, in the sense that despite what Trump says and does, he is not a Nazi, and despite American tendencies against Nazism, it does not equate with them not liking the centralization and abuse of power.
If they rant at the podium and hurl people into concentration camps, I don't see any actual fundamental difference.
Quote from: rong on June 14, 2019, 06:57:05 PM
I think modern Nazis are more the result of
"Everyone I don't like is a racist.
Hitler, a known Nazi, was a racist.
Racists are like Hitler.
Racists are Nazis.
Everyone I don't like is a Nazi."
Try talking with some self described nazis, they aren't all that hard to find.
Quote from: Pergamos on June 16, 2019, 05:41:28 AM
Quote from: rong on June 14, 2019, 06:57:05 PM
I think modern Nazis are more the result of
"Everyone I don't like is a racist.
Hitler, a known Nazi, was a racist.
Racists are like Hitler.
Racists are Nazis.
Everyone I don't like is a Nazi."
Try talking with some self described nazis, they aren't all that hard to find.
You can't swing a fucking dead cat without hitting two Nazis and an apologist. So three Nazis.
Robert Paxton in Anatomy of Fascism argues that the Ku Klux Klan were the first fascist organization.
I've been following Teri Kanefield on twitter and she has some pretty interesting observations in this arena. I haven't yet read Paxton's book, but Kanefield's take in this thread (https://twitter.com/Teri_Kanefield/status/1125409357405900802) is basically the same thing.
Isn't it small 'n' nazi for the shitbags we have running around now, and capital 'N' for the historical Nazi Party?
ETA: Not being a pedant. It's just handy for arguments where somebody tries to say Trump (or whoever) is "not a Nazi".
Quote from: Bu☆ns on June 16, 2019, 06:23:28 PM
Robert Paxton in Anatomy of Fascism argues that the Ku Klux Klan were the first fascist organization.
There's definitely a strong argument for it, though the argument is stronger for the second Klan (the 1915 version) than the first IMO.
Quote from: Cain on June 26, 2019, 11:37:22 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on June 16, 2019, 06:23:28 PM
Robert Paxton in Anatomy of Fascism argues that the Ku Klux Klan were the first fascist organization.
There's definitely a strong argument for it, though the argument is stronger for the second Klan (the 1915 version) than the first IMO.
Sorry that's the one he means as well.
Quote from: Bu☆ns on June 27, 2019, 04:53:36 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 26, 2019, 11:37:22 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on June 16, 2019, 06:23:28 PM
Robert Paxton in Anatomy of Fascism argues that the Ku Klux Klan were the first fascist organization.
There's definitely a strong argument for it, though the argument is stronger for the second Klan (the 1915 version) than the first IMO.
Sorry that's the one he means as well.
in Kanefield's threads, she talks about how trump and the like want to take america back to the days pre-new deal when rich white dudes could make out like robber barons.
ETA: She also mentions how this was americas's second's oligarcy--slavery being the first. I think that was maybe another book reference...but anyway
Yes, the Gilded Age. Not a "Golden Age", but a veneer of gold on pure-D shit. Like everything else Trump admires.
Quote from: Bu☆ns on June 27, 2019, 04:53:36 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 26, 2019, 11:37:22 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on June 16, 2019, 06:23:28 PM
Robert Paxton in Anatomy of Fascism argues that the Ku Klux Klan were the first fascist organization.
There's definitely a strong argument for it, though the argument is stronger for the second Klan (the 1915 version) than the first IMO.
Sorry that's the one he means as well.
Hah, it's obviously been too long since I read Paxton then. I don't know as much about the first Klan I will admit, but my impression is that it's more "French aristocratic reactionary", which certainly fed into the development of fascism, but lacks certain key components.
Quote from: kiss my axe on June 27, 2019, 11:46:41 AM
Yes, the Gilded Age. Not a "Golden Age", but a veneer of gold on pure-D shit. Like everything else Trump admires.
pretty much! someone (a comedian i forget who) said that trump is like not a real rich person. That he is like a homeless person's idea of a rich person--gold everywhere, etc
ETA: (https://i.imgur.com/wPb4A3s.jpg)
Quote from: Cain on June 27, 2019, 03:01:24 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on June 27, 2019, 04:53:36 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 26, 2019, 11:37:22 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on June 16, 2019, 06:23:28 PM
Robert Paxton in Anatomy of Fascism argues that the Ku Klux Klan were the first fascist organization.
There's definitely a strong argument for it, though the argument is stronger for the second Klan (the 1915 version) than the first IMO.
Sorry that's the one he means as well.
Hah, it's obviously been too long since I read Paxton then. I don't know as much about the first Klan I will admit, but my impression is that it's more "French aristocratic reactionary", which certainly fed into the development of fascism, but lacks certain key components.
I haven't actually read Anatomy of Fascism (although it's in my queue), i was sourcing this from this blog here:
Quote from: https://terikanefield-blog.com/history-of-the-gop-updated-version/5/ Income inequality opened between business tycoons and laborers, who worked long hours in dangerous jobs at poverty wages. Notice: When slaveowners had power, they voted to consolidate their power. Now industrialists did the same. Democracy tends to slide to oligarchy
6/States began segregating blacks & making it harder for them to vote (helped by the KKK) From Paxton: The world's first fascist group was the KKK. The GOP, the party of industry and equality, split into to factions: The conservative pro-Industry part and liberal pro-labor part.
7/ When SCOTUS upheld segregation and voter restrictions on blacks, the GOP dropped racial equality and labor issues from its platform and became the conservative party. By 1920, Democratic Party base consisted of Southern whites, rural America, and laborers.
and
Quote from: https://terikanefield-blog.com/whats-going-on-with-the-trump-fox-gop/
The Ku Klux Klan was authoritarian. Paxton argues that fascism didn't begin in Italy; it began in America, with the KKK, who even had a kind of uniform and demonized enemy.
Fascism happens when people get uncomfortable with too much democracy. Democracy naturally leads to diversity, which triggers a fascist backlash. The KKK arose from new rights for African Americans.
At any rate i thought it was a pretty interesting way to explain in part why things are moving toward the far-right in Europe, US, and so on. And more generally--why the appeal toward authoritarianism in the first place?
ETA: Also, i guess from reading the second quote above, Paxton *does* mean the first kkk. maybe i should just look up the book lol
There are a lot of arguments for an American influence on fascism generally. Manifest Destiny, as popularised in Germany in pulp cowboy novels did legitimize a popular opinion of Germany requiring lebensraum at the expense of other European empires, and the eugenics movement also informed Nazi "racial hygiene" theories
A /b/tard and enthusiastic racist is running for mayor in my city.
Quote from: Bu☆ns on June 28, 2019, 12:39:10 AM
pretty much! someone (a comedian i forget who) said that trump is like not a real rich person. That he is like a homeless person's idea of a rich person--gold everywhere, etc
That was Fran Lebowitz.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on June 28, 2019, 09:06:33 PM
A /b/tard and enthusiastic racist is running for mayor in my city.
Oh my. Occasionally, the gods do like to send a gift.
Enjoy!
Quote from: Hoopla! on June 28, 2019, 10:08:54 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on June 28, 2019, 12:39:10 AM
pretty much! someone (a comedian i forget who) said that trump is like not a real rich person. That he is like a homeless person's idea of a rich person--gold everywhere, etc
That was Fran Lebowitz.
Thanks!
Quote from: Cain on June 28, 2019, 10:45:46 AM
There are a lot of arguments for an American influence on fascism generally. Manifest Destiny, as popularised in Germany in pulp cowboy novels did legitimize a popular opinion of Germany requiring lebensraum at the expense of other European empires, and the eugenics movement also informed Nazi "racial hygiene" theories
I haven't considered Manifest Destiny and the cowboy myth before...but yeah that certainly fits right in there, doesn't it.
Wait... So are Nazis commonly thought of as so much worse than americans because they killed mainly white people?
Quote from: Bu☆ns on June 29, 2019, 03:16:05 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 28, 2019, 10:45:46 AM
There are a lot of arguments for an American influence on fascism generally. Manifest Destiny, as popularised in Germany in pulp cowboy novels did legitimize a popular opinion of Germany requiring lebensraum at the expense of other European empires, and the eugenics movement also informed Nazi "racial hygiene" theories
I haven't considered Manifest Destiny and the cowboy myth before...but yeah that certainly fits right in there, doesn't it.
Hitler himself was a fan of Karl May (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_May#Influence), one of the better known German writers in the genre.
Quote from: Cain on June 29, 2019, 01:38:07 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on June 29, 2019, 03:16:05 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 28, 2019, 10:45:46 AM
There are a lot of arguments for an American influence on fascism generally. Manifest Destiny, as popularised in Germany in pulp cowboy novels did legitimize a popular opinion of Germany requiring lebensraum at the expense of other European empires, and the eugenics movement also informed Nazi "racial hygiene" theories
I haven't considered Manifest Destiny and the cowboy myth before...but yeah that certainly fits right in there, doesn't it.
Hitler himself was a fan of Karl May (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_May#Influence), one of the better known German writers in the genre.
I recently came up to the narrative that Goebbels apparently was a super-fan of Edward Bernays, one of the Creel agents from the "Committee on Public Infomation".
Which is not saying that he learnt ideology from him, but the methods of propaganda and disinformation were actually american-made.
QuoteGoebbels biographers agree that he knew books such as Gustave Le Bon's Psychology of the Masses (1895) and Wilfred Trotter's Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War (1908). He studied in detail the U.S. Committee on Public Information (Creel Committee) for the U.S. propaganda effort in World War I, being impressed by the ensuing theories of Creel operatives Walter Lippman (Public Opinion, 1922) and Edward Bernays (Crystallizing Public Opinion, 1923; Propaganda, 1928).
In his autobiography, Bernays recalls that, in 1933, Hearst's European correspondent Karl von Weigand told him how Goebbels had shown him his propaganda library, the best Weigand had ever seen; and that Goebbels was using Bernay's Crystallizing Public Opinion as a basis for his destructive campaign against the Jews of Germany. Bernays himself was born Austrian, to Jewish parents, and he was a nephew of psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud.
Johnson, Dennis (editor) (2009) "Routledge Handbook of Political Management" p. 314
Quote from: The Johnny on June 30, 2019, 03:03:26 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 29, 2019, 01:38:07 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on June 29, 2019, 03:16:05 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 28, 2019, 10:45:46 AM
There are a lot of arguments for an American influence on fascism generally. Manifest Destiny, as popularised in Germany in pulp cowboy novels did legitimize a popular opinion of Germany requiring lebensraum at the expense of other European empires, and the eugenics movement also informed Nazi "racial hygiene" theories
I haven't considered Manifest Destiny and the cowboy myth before...but yeah that certainly fits right in there, doesn't it.
Hitler himself was a fan of Karl May (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_May#Influence), one of the better known German writers in the genre.
I recently came up to the narrative that Goebbels apparently was a super-fan of Edward Bernays, one of the Creel agents from the "Committee on Public Infomation".
Which is not saying that he learnt ideology from him, but the methods of propaganda and disinformation were actually american-made.
He was. Bernays was pretty much a superstar in propaganda circles, so Goebbels naturally tried to emulate his methods.
All of which goes back to my very first post, about fascism being part of the uncomfortable history of America (and most of Europe before WWII) which was excised after the war.
Americans were the actual "nazis", we came up with all this eugenics bullshit, of course, it didn't take long for actual fucking science to make eugenics its bitch, but you know, people still buy this tired, failed philosophy with astonishing regularity.
EDIT: Eugenics is about on the same level as phrenology, yet, a lot of people believe this fucking garbage, I've been in so many situations where I said to someone, "Excuse me, what did you just say?" It's, fucking rediculous.
But is DT now the perfect Discordian now that DT makes absolutely no sense and cites babble and Congresscritters don't believe it is what it is? Your papers please to enter der Homeland. Holy howdy
this notice is telling me it's an old topic: etc., but it's still fresh as crispy bacons, or will be again after the cornovirus:
nowadays anyone who is racist is a Nazi, which was not the case in the 30s becasue we had tons of racist MFers here, and we didn't care about that. the Nazis were active in the 20s and 30s, and Jim Crow, which basically said blacks were inferior to whites, wasn't repealed until the mid 60s. people like to apply this nobility to the past, and in many cases it wasn't there. if America was so huck-a-buck, ho-hum "smash the Nazis" it would've addressed the horrid bullshit within it's borders. it. did. not. Blacks were considered inferior to whites under the eyes of US law decades after Germany was defeated. to address the OP, I don't think that's how it was. sure it should be by mow, but it wasn't then
Quote from: Odibex Grallspice on May 04, 2020, 12:05:46 PM
this notice is telling me it's an old topic: etc., but it's still fresh as crispy bacons, or will be again after the cornovirus:
nowadays anyone who is racist is a Nazi, which was not the case in the 30s becasue we had tons of racist MFers here, and we didn't care about that. the Nazis were active in the 20s and 30s, and Jim Crow, which basically said blacks were inferior to whites, wasn't repealed until the mid 60s. people like to apply this nobility to the past, and in many cases it wasn't there. if America was so huck-a-buck, ho-hum "smash the Nazis" it would've addressed the horrid bullshit within it's borders. it. did. not. Blacks were considered inferior to whites under the eyes of US law decades after Germany was defeated. to address the OP, I don't think that's how it was. sure it should be by mow, but it wasn't then
I'm not sure what you're trying to convince me of.
If only someone had actualy talked about Nazis and America in this thread...
Quote from: Cain on May 07, 2020, 04:59:25 PM
If only someone had actualy talked about Nazis and America in this thread...
I know, right? :lulz:
Quote from: Odibex Grallspice on May 04, 2020, 12:05:46 PM
this notice is telling me it's an old topic: etc., but it's still fresh as crispy bacons, or will be again after the cornovirus:
nowadays anyone who is racist is a Nazi, which was not the case in the 30s becasue we had tons of racist MFers here, and we didn't care about that. the Nazis were active in the 20s and 30s, and Jim Crow, which basically said blacks were inferior to whites, wasn't repealed until the mid 60s. people like to apply this nobility to the past, and in many cases it wasn't there. if America was so huck-a-buck, ho-hum "smash the Nazis" it would've addressed the horrid bullshit within it's borders. it. did. not. Blacks were considered inferior to whites under the eyes of US law decades after Germany was defeated. to address the OP, I don't think that's how it was. sure it should be by mow, but it wasn't then
This is true, back during world war two the Nazis approached the Klan about assisting them against the US government. The Klan declined to do so. Nowadays the Klan and the NSF are basically the same thing.