tetsoushima: chuckufarlie: tetsoushima: chuckufarlie: tetsoushima: SharkTrager: lucksi: a) Hitler was duly elected.

b) our current government is a dictatorship with little democracy breaks every 4 years. Because we have no say whatsofreakingever unlike other countries where the important issues get a public vote.

He was duly elected and then immediately outlawed all other parties and seized total control. That makes him a dictator, regardless of the election.

Actually, he was appointed by Paul von Hindenburg, declared martial law following the Riechstag fire, and took control of the presidency (abolishing the position) following Hindenburg's death using the Enabling Act. The Nazi's never had a majority in the Reichstag, but don't let a little thing like fact get in the way of all of these wonderful discussions.

Facts? That is funny. In the general elections of July and November of 1932, the Nazis ended up with more seats in the Reichstag than any other party, but not a majority. In a political system with at least four parties at the time, getting a majority would be very difficult.

Eventually Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor because the Nazis were the largest party in the Reichstag and because they were making it impossible for anybody else to control the government.

In the election of 1933, the Nazis received 44% of the vote, the next closest party received 18%.

And since you like facts so much, the Enabling Act was decreed after the Reichstag fire, almost a year befor Hindenburg died.


The more you know........................

He was still not duly elected (he was appointed, as you said) and he still used the Enabling Act to gain control of and abolish the presidency.

Under the Wiemar Republic, the President was elected and the Chancellor was appointed. There was no way that Hitler could have been elected Chancellor because the system did not work that way.

Hitler DID NOT use the Enabling Act to abolish the Presidency. Hindenburg was President up to the ...

so your lack of information is actually just Semantics and oversimplification. If that gets you through the day, go for it. It does not change the fact that your knowledge on this subject is obviously extremely limited.

The Enabling Act allowed Hitler to make laws without the consent of the Reichstag. It did not give him the power to abolish the office of President. In fact, if you read the Enabling Act you would hopefully see that Hitler's action to merge the office of President and Chancellor was forbidden by the Enabling Act.

The Enabling Act was approved by the Reichstag, that is an election that Hitler won. His party also won the elections of 1932 and 1933.

How does semantics fit into your lack of knowledge now?

SurelyShirley: chuckufarlie: how nice that you are qualified to speak for the German people. Must be nice for you.

I am and it is.

Your idea that the current population of Germany would not agree to a build up of the military no matter what is rather short sighted. There are many things that could lead the people of Germany to want a larger military than today.

For example?

Wow, you really are imagination deprived. How about if one of the neighboring countries built up its military and started making threats against Germany? How about if several of the neighboring countries signed a treaty, built up their military and made threats against Germany?

Maybe Poland decides that it wants to go back to the pre-war borders with Germany.

Is it likely that any of this will happen? Probably not. However, your statement said nothing about probabilities, just "no matter what". Statements like that should not be used, it just comes across as uneducated.

lucksi: spawn73: lucksi: a) Hitler was duly elected.


The nazis got 33.1% of the votes in 1932. Hitler managed to persuade Hindenburg to appoint him reichchancellor.

In 1933 with Hitler as the reichchancellor the nazis got 43.9% of the votes. After that the nazis just stopped holding elections.


So no, Hitler was never elected democratically.

The party that runs my state got 34% of the vote in 2010. 39% in 2012

The party that runs all of Germany got 33.8% of the votes.

That is 33.8% of the VOTES. Not corrected for nonvoting population or anything.

So, was Merkel elected democratically or not?

Good point.

But what people usually mean by "Hitler was elected" was that he was elected to the position he attained, whilst he wasn't. He never got the majority of the votes, even after banning other parties.

PacManDreaming: some_beer_drinker: mods are asleep, post pictures of Hitler!

WOO HOO!

[i48.tinypic.com image 450x600]

Gee, Katie Holmes is really divorcing Tom Cruise. Probably needs time to let her ass heal.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Considering they banned every image, mention, and idea that reminded them of the Nazi Regime and their actions and consequences, this should be no surprise at all.

It's always nice to see someone whose knowledge of Germany is based on a handful of quotes from Family Guy, South Park and Fawlty Towers and "I know someone who told me his best friend's cousin once mentioned..".
Call me a skeptic, but I'm not sure those sources are always entirely correct or might skip some detail here and there.

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Godscrack: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Godscrack: I had a grand uncle that told me Hitler was uncircumcised.

Was this first-hand knowledge?

Yes. Hitler actually taught my uncle how to tell how old a person was just by reading the rings around his a**hole.

OK... that was a beer spray :)

/hehe... nice one

It's funnier in the original German.

Virtuoso80: Also: Most Goths are not knowledgeable about Gothic history.

Mention the Battle of Adrianople to th' kids today, they won't believe ya.

chuckufarlie:

Wow, you really are imagination deprived. How about if one of the neighboring countries built up its military and started making threats against Germany? How about if several of the neighboring countries signed a treaty, built up their military and made threats against Germany?

Maybe Poland decides that it wants to go back to the pre-war borders with Germany.

Is it likely that any of this will happen? Probably not. However, your statement said nothing about probabilities, just "no matter what". Statements like that should not be used, it just comes across as uneducated.

Thank you for setting me straight and educating me.
It would be interesting to find out what the German population thinks about dropping healthcare and education in favor of a 20 million man army, primarily focusing on air and space defense, in case of an invading army of flying pigs...and don't say it could not happen, because you of all people should know, that it just comes across as uneducated.

In the real world, I still do not see a valid reason for them to agree to build up their military. The largest thread in Europe would be Russia, which is currently rebuilding quality and quantity of its military. And again, I'm pretty confident that Germans would rather spend money on things like renewable energy, education, healthcare and so forth instead of the Bundeswehr.

/grew up there
//lived there a total of more than 20 years
///still have plenty o' family and friends there
////offficial spokeshole for the German people, too

To be fair, the Nazis gained power/became dictators through a democratic system.

SurelyShirley: chuckufarlie:

Wow, you really are imagination deprived. How about if one of the neighboring countries built up its military and started making threats against Germany? How about if several of the neighboring countries signed a treaty, built up their military and made threats against Germany?

Maybe Poland decides that it wants to go back to the pre-war borders with Germany.

Is it likely that any of this will happen? Probably not. However, your statement said nothing about probabilities, just "no matter what". Statements like that should not be used, it just comes across as uneducated.

Thank you for setting me straight and educating me.
It would be interesting to find out what the German population thinks about dropping healthcare and education in favor of a 20 million man army, primarily focusing on air and space defense, in case of an invading army of flying pigs...and don't say it could not happen, because you of all people should know, that it just comes across as uneducated.

In the real world, I still do not see a valid reason for them to agree to build up their military. The largest thread in Europe would be Russia, which is currently rebuilding quality and quantity of its military. And again, I'm pretty confident that Germans would rather spend money on things like renewable energy, education, healthcare and so forth instead of the Bundeswehr.

/grew up there
//lived there a total of more than 20 years
///still have plenty o' family and friends there
////offficial spokeshole for the German people, too

yes, I am sure that under threat of invasion, the German people would prefer to make sure that health care and education were preserved and the military could go pound sand.

Oh wait. I bet that if Germany was successfully invaded, health care and education would not longer be under German control, if they existed at all.

You really are NOT a clear thinker, are you?

SurelyShirley: Keizer_Ghidorah: SurelyShirley: Keizer_Ghidorah: Considering they banned every image, mention, and idea that reminded them of the Nazi Regime and their actions and consequences, this should be no surprise at all.

They have?

[i45.tinypic.com image 640x447]

chuckufarlie: Keizer_Ghidorah: Considering they banned every image, mention, and idea that reminded them of the Nazi Regime and their actions and consequences, this should be no surprise at all.

You seem to be misinformed. Children are taught about the Nazis in school. Children are taken to concentration camps as a class trip. From the early days of the occupation, German citizens have been taught about the horrors of the Third Reich.

Huh. Well, they ban any mention in movies and video games, along with taking out the blood and violence and changing human enemies into robots.

I wouldn't know about video games since "Space Invaders" and "Asteroid" were the last ones I played, but I'm fairly certain they do mention the Third Reich in movies
So they reduce violence in movies. I could think of a country that reduces (some might say restricts) sex and sexuality in movies, tv shows and commercials. You tell me which one's more enjoyable.

Both countries are stupid and think that the tender impressionable children will be turned into murderers/rapists because of pretend punching/boobies. It's best to weep for both.

I got to talk quite a bit with a few German exchange students back in high school (which wasn't very long ago btw), and they painted a very different picture of their historical education than the one in this article. Essentially they were taught about WWII so much that they wouldn't know much else about German history if they hadn't studied it on their own. My German teacher also swore that a random stranger walked up and hugged her in the street, and apologized for the war, so I'm thinking this poll may be a little off the mark.

/The Japanese exchange student was a totally different story
//She was practically in shock when we covered the rape of Naking
///The history book she had with her from home had two paragraphs covering WWII, and not a sentence more

KrispyKritter: ask american schoolchildren and they probably don't know how Philadelphia Police dropped a bomb on the Osage Street MOVE organization house in an attempt to squelch an armed standoff. The resulting explosion killed 11 people (5 were children) and destroyed 60 working peoples homes.

they probably don't know how Mayor Daley's goon squads attacked protesters. or how american citizens who were members of the Ohio National Guard open fire upon college students at Kent State University, killing 4 unarmed students and wounding 9 others, one a permanent paralysis.

they probably don't know how black folks were treated in this country for the longest time. or how workers picketing for better conditions were beat down and killed in multiple stand-offs over the past 100 years. the list goes on and on.

Yea, your list goes on and on but it doesn't really compare does it? Why do children in LA need to know about a police action in Philly? Why do children in Miami need to know about what went on in Chicago? Or why kids in Kansas need to know about the national guard in Ohio?

What happened in Germany in the last century was something that was nationwide. In fact, it was beyond nationwide.

Do you understand that German children not knowing about Hitler and the Third Reich is far beyond anything that you have listed? Hitler's regime killed over 6 million innocent men, women and children in the holocaust. The war that Hitler started caused the deaths of some 50 million people. What happened in Philly does not compare.

As for the treatment of black people, that is a subject taught in school. Granted, the kids are usually taught a bunch of lies in the south, but it is taught.

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: BronyMedic: The sound of one hand clapping: Is this the Mail blowing things out of proportion as usual?

Yes, young people all around the world have a tendency to not give a crap about stuff that happened more than 20 years ago. But I was always under the impression that the Germans, as a whole, did not hide away from their countries past. Isn't it even an arrestable offence to use nazi images in public without good reason?

This.

Germany is the polar opposite of Japan. Japan wants to minimize it's role in atrocities in World War II, and the only shame from them is that they lost.

Meh. We in the United States tend to forget we had concentration camps too and that we abused our government's statistical service to put people in there.
"But we didn't gas anyone!" - yeah, well, didn't do a good job of keeping everyone alive either.

I got the honor of visiting Dresden. It looks nice these days. Turns out they've been rebuilding brick-by-brick for the past sixty someodd years. It's beautiful. I did get a bit sick when I learned the enormous courtyard in the middle of the city is actually a mass gravesite though.

/war is hell

I've been to Dresden as well, very interesting city.

That said, I could not feel less guilt about Dresden, just like I feel zero guilt about the atomic bombs on Japan.

If they'd had the means I'd bet every penny I'll ever make that they would have done the same thing to us or Britain.

Note that I'm not saying I'm glad that thousands died because of American bombs, but I'm not going to pretend war is all sunshine and roses either.

/Internment camps are pretty unforgivable though

spawn73: lucksi: spawn73: lucksi: a) Hitler was duly elected.


The nazis got 33.1% of the votes in 1932. Hitler managed to persuade Hindenburg to appoint him reichchancellor.

In 1933 with Hitler as the reichchancellor the nazis got 43.9% of the votes. After that the nazis just stopped holding elections.


So no, Hitler was never elected democratically.

The party that runs my state got 34% of the vote in 2010. 39% in 2012

The party that runs all of Germany got 33.8% of the votes.

That is 33.8% of the VOTES. Not corrected for nonvoting population or anything.

So, was Merkel elected democratically or not?

Good point.

But what people usually mean by "Hitler was elected" was that he was elected to the position he attained, whilst he wasn't. He never got the majority of the votes, even after banning other parties.

there were four political parties involved in the elections of 1932/33. It was hardly likely that anybody would win a majority. His party did get more votes in the elections of 1932/1933. That is how the system worked.

FYI, once Hitler banned all of the other parties, no further elections held. It would have been rather pointless, anyway. But the idea that he would not have received the majority of the votes after the other parties were banned is hilarious. Did over 50% of the votes go to a write-in candidate in your little idea?

chuckufarlie: tetsoushima: chuckufarlie: tetsoushima: chuckufarlie: tetsoushima: SharkTrager: lucksi: a) Hitler was duly elected.

b) our current government is a dictatorship with little democracy breaks every 4 years. Because we have no say whatsofreakingever unlike other countries where the important issues get a public vote.

He was duly elected and then immediately outlawed all other parties and seized total control. That makes him a dictator, regardless of the election.

Actually, he was appointed by Paul von Hindenburg, declared martial law following the Riechstag fire, and took control of the presidency (abolishing the position) following Hindenburg's death using the Enabling Act. The Nazi's never had a majority in the Reichstag, but don't let a little thing like fact get in the way of all of these wonderful discussions.

Facts? That is funny. In the general elections of July and November of 1932, the Nazis ended up with more seats in the Reichstag than any other party, but not a majority. In a political system with at least four parties at the time, getting a majority would be very difficult.

Eventually Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor because the Nazis were the largest party in the Reichstag and because they were making it impossible for anybody else to control the government.

In the election of 1933, the Nazis received 44% of the vote, the next closest party received 18%.

And since you like facts so much, the Enabling Act was decreed after the Reichstag fire, almost a year befor Hindenburg died.


The more you know........................

He was still not duly elected (he was appointed, as you said) and he still used the Enabling Act to gain control of and abolish the presidency.

Under the Wiemar Republic, the President was elected and the Chancellor was appointed. There was no way that Hitler could have been elected Chancellor because the system did not work that way.

Hitler DID NOT use the Enabling Act to abolish the Presidency. Hindenburg was Preside ...

Having read what you said, and doing a little more research I can see that I was wrong. I guess I'll have to live that down. I can see why I thought what I did, but my knowledge was spotty and I messed it up. Sorry farkers. I'll do my best to think a little longer before I fly off the handle next time.

chuckufarlie: spawn73: lucksi: spawn73: lucksi: a) Hitler was duly elected.


The nazis got 33.1% of the votes in 1932. Hitler managed to persuade Hindenburg to appoint him reichchancellor.

In 1933 with Hitler as the reichchancellor the nazis got 43.9% of the votes. After that the nazis just stopped holding elections.


So no, Hitler was never elected democratically.

The party that runs my state got 34% of the vote in 2010. 39% in 2012

The party that runs all of Germany got 33.8% of the votes.

That is 33.8% of the VOTES. Not corrected for nonvoting population or anything.

So, was Merkel elected democratically or not?

Good point.

But what people usually mean by "Hitler was elected" was that he was elected to the position he attained, whilst he wasn't. He never got the majority of the votes, even after banning other parties.

there were four political parties involved in the elections of 1932/33. It was hardly likely that anybody would win a majority. His party did get more votes in the elections of 1932/1933. That is how the system worked.

FYI, once Hitler banned all of the other parties, no further elections held. It would have been rather pointless, anyway. But the idea that he would not have received the majority of the votes after the other parties were banned is hilarious. Did over 50% of the votes go to a write-in candidate in your little idea?


Your mother dropped you a lot head first when you were a baby?

---

Let me try again.

Hitler was not elected.

Understood it?


Who the fark cares if he could have rigged an election to make himself win, that would have been pointless, and he farking didn't even do that.

Heh, I just had a look at the PDF from the makers of the survey that someone linked upthread.

Apparently "24%" is "half of German students" and 29% and change is "more than 50 percent" if you work for the Daily Fail..

spawn73: chuckufarlie: spawn73: lucksi: spawn73: lucksi: a) Hitler was duly elected.


The nazis got 33.1% of the votes in 1932. Hitler managed to persuade Hindenburg to appoint him reichchancellor.

In 1933 with Hitler as the reichchancellor the nazis got 43.9% of the votes. After that the nazis just stopped holding elections.


So no, Hitler was never elected democratically.

The party that runs my state got 34% of the vote in 2010. 39% in 2012

The party that runs all of Germany got 33.8% of the votes.

That is 33.8% of the VOTES. Not corrected for nonvoting population or anything.

So, was Merkel elected democratically or not?

Good point.

But what people usually mean by "Hitler was elected" was that he was elected to the position he attained, whilst he wasn't. He never got the majority of the votes, even after banning other parties.

there were four political parties involved in the elections of 1932/33. It was hardly likely that anybody would win a majority. His party did get more votes in the elections of 1932/1933. That is how the system worked.

FYI, once Hitler banned all of the other parties, no further elections held. It would have been rather pointless, anyway. But the idea that he would not have received the majority of the votes after the other parties were banned is hilarious. Did over 50% of the votes go to a write-in candidate in your little idea?


Your mother dropped you a lot head first when you were a baby?

---

Let me try again.

Hitler was not elected.

Understood it?


Who the fark cares if he could have rigged an election to make himself win, that would have been pointless, and he farking didn't even do that.

I will leave you with this - You have no understanding at all of how the Wiemar govt. operated nor do you understand how the elections worked under the Wiemar Republic.

Other than that, you are spot on.

BTW - IF Hitler had allowed an election after he abolished all of the other political parties, why would be have to rig the election to win? He was bound to win if he was the only one running.

chuckufarlie: spawn73: chuckufarlie: spawn73: lucksi: spawn73: lucksi: a) Hitler was duly elected.


The nazis got 33.1% of the votes in 1932. Hitler managed to persuade Hindenburg to appoint him reichchancellor.

In 1933 with Hitler as the reichchancellor the nazis got 43.9% of the votes. After that the nazis just stopped holding elections.


So no, Hitler was never elected democratically.

The party that runs my state got 34% of the vote in 2010. 39% in 2012

The party that runs all of Germany got 33.8% of the votes.

That is 33.8% of the VOTES. Not corrected for nonvoting population or anything.

So, was Merkel elected democratically or not?

Good point.

But what people usually mean by "Hitler was elected" was that he was elected to the position he attained, whilst he wasn't. He never got the majority of the votes, even after banning other parties.

there were four political parties involved in the elections of 1932/33. It was hardly likely that anybody would win a majority. His party did get more votes in the elections of 1932/1933. That is how the system worked.

FYI, once Hitler banned all of the other parties, no further elections held. It would have been rather pointless, anyway. But the idea that he would not have received the majority of the votes after the other parties were banned is hilarious. Did over 50% of the votes go to a write-in candidate in your little idea?


Your mother dropped you a lot head first when you were a baby?

---

Let me try again.

Hitler was not elected.

Understood it?


Who the fark cares if he could have rigged an election to make himself win, that would have been pointless, and he farking didn't even do that.

I will leave you with this - You have no understanding at all of how the Wiemar govt. operated nor do you understand how the elections worked under the Wiemar Republic.

Other than that, you are spot on.

BTW - IF Hitler had allowed an election after he abolished all of the other political parties, why would be have to rig t ...

I do understand how the Wiemar republic worked, which is why I can say with confidence that Hitler was not elected, ever.

The comparison with Merkel in president Germany is irrelevant, because the Weimar republic used a winner takes all system. And in that, Hitler /lost/ to Hindenburg.

Hindenburg declared Hitler chancellor, and then died. This allowed to Hitler to usurp power.

---

What Hitler could have done with absolute power is irrelevant to the notion of some people thinking that Hitler was democracticly elected at some point (that's how the discussion started), when reality is that Hindenburg was elected over Hitler, even when they were the only two choices.

Tyranicle: Jon iz teh kewl: wasn't Bill Clinton actually a Republican??

Maybe, he did balance the budget.

...then Bush was a Democrat!

/what does this make Obama?

spawn73: chuckufarlie: spawn73: chuckufarlie: spawn73: lucksi: spawn73: lucksi: a) Hitler was duly elected.


The nazis got 33.1% of the votes in 1932. Hitler managed to persuade Hindenburg to appoint him reichchancellor.

In 1933 with Hitler as the reichchancellor the nazis got 43.9% of the votes. After that the nazis just stopped holding elections.


So no, Hitler was never elected democratically.

The party that runs my state got 34% of the vote in 2010. 39% in 2012

The party that runs all of Germany got 33.8% of the votes.

That is 33.8% of the VOTES. Not corrected for nonvoting population or anything.

So, was Merkel elected democratically or not?

Good point.

But what people usually mean by "Hitler was elected" was that he was elected to the position he attained, whilst he wasn't. He never got the majority of the votes, even after banning other parties.

there were four political parties involved in the elections of 1932/33. It was hardly likely that anybody would win a majority. His party did get more votes in the elections of 1932/1933. That is how the system worked.

FYI, once Hitler banned all of the other parties, no further elections held. It would have been rather pointless, anyway. But the idea that he would not have received the majority of the votes after the other parties were banned is hilarious. Did over 50% of the votes go to a write-in candidate in your little idea?


Your mother dropped you a lot head first when you were a baby?

---

Let me try again.

Hitler was not elected.

Understood it?


Who the fark cares if he could have rigged an election to make himself win, that would have been pointless, and he farking didn't even do that.

I will leave you with this - You have no understanding at all of how the Wiemar govt. operated nor do you understand how the elections worked under the Wiemar Republic.

Other than that, you are spot on.

BTW - IF Hitler had allowed an election after he abolished all of the other political parties, why would be ...

The Nazi party won the largest percentage of seats in the Reichstag. It was usual for the President to appoint the leader of the largest party to the office of Chancellor. Hindenburg did not do this at first, and his choice was unable to get anything done with the Reichstag.

The largest party in the Reichstag had the power to dissolve the Reichstag and call for a new election. That was another reason for appointing Hitler.

No, Hitler was not elected but his appointment had lots to do with his party winning more seats than any other party.

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Meh. We in the United States tend to forget we had concentration camps too and that we abused our government's statistical service to put people in there.
"But we didn't gas anyone!" - yeah, well, didn't do a good job of keeping everyone alive either.

[Citation Needed]

BronyMedic: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Meh. We in the United States tend to forget we had concentration camps too and that we abused our government's statistical service to put people in there.
"But we didn't gas anyone!" - yeah, well, didn't do a good job of keeping everyone alive either.

[Citation Needed]

Oh, we concentrated people in to camps, but we didn't gas them, they just were forced to live there.

EnglishChef PolishInventor GermanHumanitarian: Tyranicle: Jon iz teh kewl: wasn't Bill Clinton actually a Republican??

Maybe, he did balance the budget.

...then Bush was a Democrat!

/what does this make Obama?

Commie half-breed bastard usurper.

bhcompy: Oh, we concentrated people in to camps, but we didn't gas them, they just were forced to live there.

Japanese Internment was a shameful thing, but to equivicate it with German Konzentrationslagers (Concentration Camps) or Jüdischer Wohnbezirks (The Relocation Ghettos, which would be the closest NAZI Germany project that could even be considered to.) is completely hyperbolic and exaggaratory.

Yes. It was a horrible thing. But it wasn't the same, it wasn't industrialized murder and human experimentation on a scale that had never been seen before. It was cold, calculating, planned, documented, and designed to remove any unnecessary form of human involvement. The SS and Heer had found that even the murder of those considered "racially inferior or unworthy of life" ruined the soldiers involved in the firing squads. They murdered women and children. That's why you had gas trucks and later Carbon Monoxide and Zyklon B chambers.

BronyMedic: bhcompy: Oh, we concentrated people in to camps, but we didn't gas them, they just were forced to live there.

Japanese Internment was a shameful thing, but to equivicate it with German Konzentrationslagers (Concentration Camps) or Jüdischer Wohnbezirks (The Relocation Ghettos, which would be the closest NAZI Germany project that could even be considered to.) is completely hyperbolic and exaggaratory.

Yes. It was a horrible thing. But it wasn't the same, it wasn't industrialized murder and human experimentation on a scale that had never been seen before. It was cold, calculating, planned, documented, and designed to remove any unnecessary form of human involvement. The SS and Heer had found that even the murder of those considered "racially inferior or unworthy of life" ruined the soldiers involved in the firing squads. They murdered women and children. That's why you had gas trucks and later Carbon Monoxide and Zyklon B chambers.

Never equivocated them. Just said that the name does apply. People were concentrated in one place, thus concentration. Maybe I'm being pedantic

NEIN! Vie ver invited! Punch was served!!

bhcompy: BronyMedic: bhcompy: Oh, we concentrated people in to camps, but we didn't gas them, they just were forced to live there.

Japanese Internment was a shameful thing, but to equivicate it with German Konzentrationslagers (Concentration Camps) or Jüdischer Wohnbezirks (The Relocation Ghettos, which would be the closest NAZI Germany project that could even be considered to.) is completely hyperbolic and exaggaratory.

Yes. It was a horrible thing. But it wasn't the same, it wasn't industrialized murder and human experimentation on a scale that had never been seen before. It was cold, calculating, planned, documented, and designed to remove any unnecessary form of human involvement. The SS and Heer had found that even the murder of those considered "racially inferior or unworthy of life" ruined the soldiers involved in the firing squads. They murdered women and children. That's why you had gas trucks and later Carbon Monoxide and Zyklon B chambers.

Never equivocated them. Just said that the name does apply. People were concentrated in one place, thus concentration. Maybe I'm being pedantic

Shallow and pedantic!

My distant ancestors raped, burned, pillaged, kidnapped and held slaves. I'm so proud of them.

/ But they didn't wear horned helmets, dammit.

Konataism: My distant ancestors raped, burned, pillaged, kidnapped and held slaves. I'm so proud of them.

/ But they didn't wear horned helmets, dammit.

It was probably too hot in Africa for that kind of thing.

/but I know the feel, my brother.

The Daily Mail should as always be careful whenever discussing fascist Germany.

Was Clinton a female concentration camp guard? Don't get it.

cretinbob: Tyranicle: Jon iz teh kewl: wasn't Bill Clinton actually a Republican??

Maybe, he did balance the budget.

and lowered taxes

Was Clinton a female concentration camp guard? Don't get it.

Hitler: "My dog has no nose"
Crowd: "How does he smell?"
Hitler: "Awful!"

...it's no wonder the Brits destroyed Hitler in joke warfare. Nobody's talking about that in Germany, either.

Tyranicle: Germans make good cars.

Because they have good roads, and who built the good roads?

Work will set you free.

Deep Contact: Because they have good roads, and who built the good roads?

Slave labor and the Organisation Todt?

Just started Snyder's 'Bloodlands'.

Holy crap...some of the stuff he pulled out of post-Wall Soviet archives...

Highly recommend it, if you have the stomach for it.

You only THINK you understand the Holocaust.

Deep Contact: Tyranicle: Germans make good cars.

Because they have good roads, and who built the good roads?

The Germans?

Tyranicle: Deep Contact: Tyranicle: Germans make good cars.

Because they have good roads, and who built the good roads?

The Germans?

Hitler

badhatharry: Slaxl: stiletto_the_wise:
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x371]

I think "Republicans" and "Conservatives" need to be swapped, the Republicans are being moved by the religious right toward the lunatic fringe, also the Democrats are still right of centre, they're just not as right as conservatism.

However the almost circular spectrum is the one that makes the most sense. Once you get to the extreme right and the extreme left totalitarianists they have more in common than they would like to admit. But yeah, it doesn't mean the Nazis had more in common with the Democrats than the Republicans, but you can't argue with some people, their lack of education means they only believe what douchebags called "Jonah" tell them.

Where do the Neo-Confederate Libertarian-Anarchists (Ron Paul) fit?

In their own little sphere, confined away from the rest of us.