What is a Nazi?

[Ranger0001]

The person who called 911 to get the police to get rid of this less fortunate man, and the police that humiliated him, killed his animal family, are Nazis.

I'd argue that they could be Nazis but to be a Nazi is to follow the philosophy of Nazism and that alone would not display the fact that they did no matter how horrible it was.

If we are using Nazi in any context beyond the semi-humorous soup nazi/grammar nazi context, it should refer to a relatively coherent set of positions characterized by strong authoritarianism, racism, virulent anti-semitism, and a general fondness for reducing everyone who isn't them to a slave-race. Using 'Nazi' to refer to "things I don't like" weakens it. At times the Nazi comparison start to feel like a funhouse-mirror version of those anti-vaxxers so rightly mocked for trying to equate vaccine mandates with the Holocaust.

I completely agree. I mean obviously it is not like the Holocaust (as it saves people, not kills them ) But I do feel that is a more extreme example as you could draw some parallels between the cops and Nazis but not with vaccinations. (Like the cops getting rid of someone undesirable" while you couldn't with vaccines though I do completely agree with you overall.

 

[GenMarshall]

Everyone gets offended by the thoughts and actions of those they disagree with nowadays. And not only do they get offended, they like to make it known that they are offended. The internet and social media have given them the tools to do so. I'm offended because you're offended because she's offended....round and round the merry-go-round spins.

I’m offended that Birdjaguar is offended that someone messed up his breakfast order. And I offended grandma for being offended on behalf of Birdjaguar .

 

[GenMarshall]

There is no reason to assume that, even if a certain Austrian painter had been hit by a streetcar in 1910, a conflict of comparable scale to the Second World War would have developed.

Even if Hitler was sniped in the fields during World War I. Japan would have still made a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and the Empire of Japan would have still gone with their expansionist empire building policy. World War II would have been a different war but left with many questions.

How would Germany handle the Versailles Treaty?
Would Germany still be treated like a pariah amongst the European Great Powers, or would there be a movement of rapprochement?
Would they allow Germany to rearm after the Soviets invaded Poland (the Poles did repelled the Soviets in the Polish-Soviet War).
And many more that I can’t think off the top of my head since there are so many variables.

 

[red_elk]

Would they allow Germany to rearm after the Soviets invaded Poland (the Poles did repelled the Soviets in the Polish-Soviet War).

From your link:

Piłsudski believed that the best way for Poland to secure favorable borders was by military action and that he could easily defeat the Red Army forces. His Kiev Offensive, considered to have begun the Polish–Soviet War sensu stricto, commenced in late April 1920 and resulted in the takeover of Kiev by the Polish and allied Ukrainian forces on 7 May. The Soviet armies in the area, which were weaker, had not been defeated, as they avoided major confrontations and withdrew.

The Polish offensive was met by successful counterattacks by the Red Army, from 5 June on the southern Ukrainian front and from 4 July on the northern front. The Soviet operation pushed the Polish forces back westward all the way to Warsaw, the Polish capital, while the Directorate of Ukraine fled to Western Europe. Fears of Soviet troops arriving at the German borders increased the interest and involvement of the Western powers in the war. In mid-summer the fall of Warsaw seemed certain, but in mid-August the tide had turned again after the Polish forces achieved an unexpected and decisive victory at the Battle of Warsaw. In the wake of the eastward Polish advance that followed, the Soviets sued for peace, and the war ended with a ceasefire on 18 October 1920.

 

[Fippy]

Fantasy thread by now, Hitler started WW2 and there's no evidence some other country would have actually made the first move if he wasn't there.
And an attack spiraling into an actual world war, even if one happens.

 

[GenMarshall]

From your link:

I mentioned it in parentheses, I didn't want to make the question too wordy .

 

[red_elk]

I mentioned it in parentheses, I didn't want to make the question too wordy .

The fact that the "Soviet invasion of Poland" started with Pilsudski annexing most of Lithuania, Belarus and capturing Kiev, was probably worth mentioning.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The boomers didn't need social media to express the offence they felt. They used censorship and the government to outlaw things.

A couple, three examples would be nice.

 

[amadeus]

The boomers came of age in the late sixties to the seventies, a period well-known for its stringent social conservatism and puritan attitudes.

 

[GenMarshall]

Fantasy thread by now, Hitler started WW2 and there's no evidence some other country would have actually made the first move if he wasn't there.
And an attack spiraling into an actual world war, even if one happens.

One could argue that the Second Sino-Japanese war is an extension of World War II. Even if it’s in the pacific theater.

 

[amadeus]

One could argue that the Second Sino-Japanese war is an extension of World War II. Even if it’s in the pacific theater.

Some have argued even, and I think it’s a stretch, that the Mukden incident in 1931 was the starting point. I think that’s being pretty generous because even during the latter attempts at settling the Sino-Japanese conflict there was no attempt made to cede Manchukuo to the KMT, or even specify a withdrawal period for Japanese evacuation of China.

Absent Hitler there are still also Mussolini and Stalin. Assuming everything else plays out the way it did with the depression in 1929, who takes power in Germany? Germany minus Hitler was still kind of a dictatorship by this point, still had not formally accepted Poland’s borders, and had a general staff secretly planning for remilitarization (with Soviet help.)

 

[GenMarshall]

Assuming everything else plays out the way it did with the depression in 1929, who takes power in Germany? Germany minus Hitler was still kind of a dictatorship by this point, still had not formally accepted Poland’s borders, and had a general staff secretly planning for remilitarization (with Soviet help.)

I’d all come under who President Paul von Hindenburg (assuming things are the same to have him elected to the German presidency and win any subsequent re-elections) picks to be the Chancellor for Germany and the candidate takes advantage of Hindenburg’s death in 1934 (with or without Hitler, Hindenburg is still going to die from lung cancer) to take control of both the presidency along with the chancellorship. Even then, Hindenburg wasn’t to amicable towards any democratic government and had a soft spot for the old German Kaiserreich/Monarchy.

 

[Lexicus]

A couple, three examples would be nice.

Ever seen photos of white people spitting on Ruby Bridges?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Ever seen photos of white people spitting on Ruby Bridges?

Ruby was a boomer and those who spit on her were not; they were mostly "the greatest Generation" folks. Not an example of censorship or government laws installed by boomers. Boomers inherited most of the terrible laws and censorship. That is not to say that there weren't boomers who did/do support those practices and did things to keep them in place. But if you look at the trends from 1970 to today, there is less censorship and fewer government laws supporting such things.

 

[Lexicus]

Ruby was a boomer and those who spit on her were not; they were mostly "the greatest Generation" folks. Not an example of censorship or government laws installed by boomers. Boomers inherited most of the terrible laws and censorship. That is not to say that there weren't boomers who did/do support those practices and did things to keep them in place. But if you look at the trends from 1970 to today, there is less censorship and fewer government laws supporting such things.

I'm aware of all that but I think aelf may be using Boomer as a shorthand for anyone older than about 40. Not 100% sure.

 

[amadeus]

Japan would have still made a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and the Empire of Japan would have still gone with their expansionist empire building policy.

Okay, so this is something I was thinking about and I disagree. Let’s look at Japan’s position in 1940: Germany has invaded the Netherlands and France, Italy has joined the war on Germany’s side and the Japanese have been defeated by the USSR.

Japan’s “south first” policy comes to prominence, French Indochina is taken and Siam is aligned to Japan. Absent a European war, France and the Netherlands are at full strength and the British have no distractions neither in Europe nor N. Africa. Arguably, the Soviet Union also has no reason to fear super-Germany on its border because... it isn’t.

That leaves Japan, assuming it attempts to meddle with the Western imperial powers, alone against US/GB/FR/NL while also having four-fifths of their armies making limited progress in China.

Japan starting a multi-front war under these conditions might possibly be the worst military decision ever, even worse than Paraguay fighting Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay all at the same time.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm aware of all that but I think aelf may be using Boomer as a shorthand for anyone older than about 40. Not 100% sure.

I wouldn't be surprised. As we boomers used to say in 1967: "Don't trust anyone over 30."

 

[Lexicus]

Okay, so this is something I was thinking about and I disagree. Let’s look at Japan’s position in 1940: Germany has invaded the Netherlands and France, Italy has joined the war on Germany’s side and the Japanese have been defeated by the USSR.

This is exactly correct. I am not sure the Japanese wouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor absent Germany's aggression in Europe but it seems silly to say they certainly would have.

 

[Ajidica]

Even if Hitler was sniped in the fields during World War I. Japan would have still made a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and the Empire of Japan would have still gone with their expansionist empire building policy. World War II would have been a different war but left with many questions.

Why would Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor? The Pearl Harbor attack was part of Japan's attempt to seize territory from European powers in Asia while they were distracted with WW2 or occupied by Germany. No WW2 in Europe puts Japan in a much trickier position in Asia. Dutch, French, and British have enough forces to put a serious crimp in Japanese plans, let alone if the Americans get involved. If Japan gets into a fight with the Americans, French, Dutch, and British, there is a good chance the Soviets decide Manchuria is looking awfully tasty.

 

[bernie14]

So you are saying that people vote for such "rat catchers" because they do not inform themselves about the person they actually vote for?

No I'm not.

Seriously, these people have a history that is usually discussed up and down by media in all details which can only be ignored if you really want to.

On average, i do much more research on a story that interests me beyond what "the media" has to say.

These "rat catchers" do not magically change from a saint to a selfish liar and hater once voted.
They have always been of a selfish character throughout their history and that is really hard to hide for long.

----

I have head more than once argumentations from people voting such leaders basically boiling down to stuff like this:

• "Even if he is a liar, had sexual interactions with prostitutes, commited tax frauds, cheated his business partners, hates foreigners, ... he still is the only way forward."
• "I do not care who he is as a person, but he will take this elite society down that has ruined us. This country needs a cleansing fire to later be built from scratch again."
• "No matter what, things need to change. With the other guy everything would have stayed the same. So I rather vote an extremist than accept the status quo."
• "We need somebody strong to lead us into a new age. If he is not the most moral person or the most honest, I do not really care."
• "He promised, he will protect our jobs. Everything else does not matter to me and I am not even interested to hear it."
• ...

Such voters vote for such leaders because they do not care about morals, truth or integrity anymore, because they are fed up, discontent or even desperate.
They would even vote for a pig in a ballerina dress as long as somebody told them that it serves their goals and that pig would "Make ... great again !"

No, they vote for them because the alternative is worse

---

We may find many excuses about why such "rat catchers" come to power.
We may try to tell ourselves later the excuse "Oh, I simply did not know ...".

The simple truth:

The people that vote for such "rat catchers" do not care about the true character of these "rat cathers" anymore.
Discontent or desperation of these people has to a huge degree overshadowed morals and logic already.

They vote for such "rat catchers" because all they are interest is their own selfish goals and that is exactly what those "rat catchers" promise them. They do not care about the christian morals or environment or humanity as a whole anymore. All they still care about is themselves, their family and maybe their own country.

----

Let us face it:

Once we humans face problems that make us discontent and desperate enough, morals and logic have very little value for us anymore.
We become selfish, aggressive and stupid beings following the mass in the hope of somehow benefitting ourselves from it as well.

----

These are the mechanism that generally all extremists "rat catchers" rise to power.
Left or right does not really matter anymore. All that matters is that there are enough discontent and desperate people.

So I can only repeat to the question "What is a Nazi?" below:



If you asked me about "What is a religious extremist?" or "What is an left extremist?" the answer would be almost identical.
The only difference is that they had fallen for a different type of propaganda and a different type of "rat catchers".

----

It is extremely simple:

Once people become discontent enough or desperate enough they are subsceptible to propaganda, lies and the next promise of an "easy solution" as long as it fits their goals.
Once that happens the "rat catchers" will crawl out of their sewers and arise to power because people do not care about things like morals, integrity or truth anymore.

It is not like voters were just stupid and could be lied to because we accidently did not inform ourselves.
It is in most cases an active choice to be stupid because we simply want to hear and believe the lies they tell us.

Everything else is pretty much a cheap excuse of people not wanting to admit that they put selfishness before morals.
The signals were obvious and abandundant but voters just did not want to see them ...

----

Does anybyody really believe that stuff like "America first" or "All Mexicans are criminals" are messages of hope and friendship?
Tell me something like this is a message of moral values or logic or even common sense? Seriously?

Does anybyody really believe that Brexit happened because of moral values of cooperation and friendship? It was a stupid decision driven by misguided selfishness.
It happened because of Britain still dreaming of being a powerful Empire that is able to suppress and exploit other countries for its own benefit.

Does anybyody really believe that conquering Poland by the Nazi was an act of helping a neighbour country to finally get rid of the evil Jews suppressing it.
It happened because Nazi Germany was seeking to conquer other countries to exploit their resources and to gain power.

Sure, I am aware that these 3 examples can not really be compared.
Neither Donald Trump nor BoJo commited attrocities like Adolf Hitler.
Neither the US nor the British started a war or commited a genocide.

All I am saying is that the reasons and mechanisms for these guys being voted into power were similar:
People were simply fed up with the existing ruling class and voted for "rat catchers" telling them lies.
They simply had chosen to ignore the selfish characters of these people because they shared their goals.

----

In other words:

Whenever selfishness, discontent and hate overcome moral and logic stupid things happen.
It is just human nature though because we become stupid seflish beings again once angry or desperate enough.

And once that happens we do not want leaders that have morals or integrity anymore because they would stand in our ways.
We want leaders that are just as selfish, stupid, discontent and full of hate as we are ourselves that do everything for their goals.

----

Well again, maybe consider what you or your country has voted for last time.
Maybe consider what that tells about yourself and try to figure out for yourself why it had happened honestly.

Or maybe try to find more cheap excuses for what happened so you can continue to do it just the same next time.
This time it may still work but next time your leader may be the new "Adolf Hitler" and cheap excuses may not be that easy to find anymore ...

America has a long and rich history of voting for unscrupulous, low moral leaders that don't rise to the level of hitler (well, maybe the Democrat Jack"ass"son). And at least, he didn't start a world war. In addition, neither the US or Britain is in any sort of imaginable situation close to Germany interwar. Not even close. Not in any conceivable way.

...America first" or "All Mexicans are criminals"

as for this, the first statement should be axiomatic to any politician from any country. The second statement is just some lie you heard from your "media".