This for real?

Soviets

Literally every fucking major power.

Americans did it with the natives and blacks.
France was all up in SEA and NW Africa.
Britain was in Africa and S Asia.
Reds did it to everyone and themselves.

Everyone was "working on assimilating/genociding people in occupied territories." You can bet your sweet ass they were experimenting on people too.

Apart from the Soviet Union, another authoritarian socialist regime, no, nobody did. And even the Soviets didn't have the sort of plans regarding different ethnicities that the Axis did.

None of that even begins to compare to what the Axis did, even the Soviets, and you know it

I'm sure your childish notions of good and evil shield you from the truth. Lessening the human suffering caused by your favorite country by hiding behind the 'they did worse' excuse when your appalling crimes are heinous in the first place. Placing the populations of whole countries into what is for all intents and purposes slavery and keep them in absolutely deplorable conditions while raping their resources and labor is so much better than killing masses of people or experimenting on prisoners.

They all treated human beings like animals. There is no difference.

This is like interrupting a discussion about ISIS raping and selling women into slavery with a rant about how marriage is an institution created by the patriarchy to enslave women and how all heterosexual intercourse is rape.

Sure, man.

Actual slavery, rape, exploitation, etc. is exactly like boogeyman bullshit.

Enjoy your fucking day.

Blacks were in segregated units relegated to clearing mines or some shitty job.

>Everyone was working on assimilating/genociding people in occupied territories
You got to agree there was a pretty big ditch between what they were doing and what the Germans were doing?
Even the Soviets who moved millions of people around didn't send people to death camps and the surge in deaths during the war was an effect of the supply system collapsing rather than any clear plan to eradicate populations.
Not that camps for political enemies aren't shitty.

you're embarrassing.

>Americans did it with the natives

in the 20th century? you're fucking retarded

>and blacks.

ethnic genocide? please..

>France was all up in SEA and NW Africa.
>Britain was in Africa and S Asia.

and did they commit organized genocide? any sources?

>Reds did it to everyone and themselves.

only valid point

If someone is not American, than they do not understand the darker side of this country. They hear genocide and Native Americans and jump to millions of conclusions. The deaths of the natives can mostly be contributed to disease, rather than any mass genocidal campaign. The true horrors of the Indian campaign,such as the Trail of Tears and Colorado Massacre, happened due to political corruption rather than any American plan to wipe Natives from the map.

Blacks felt the hard hand of slavery, but that is more comparable to Russian serfdom than it is German Con-Camps. The racial prejudice against blacks was terrible, but no where near on the scope of the Nazi attack on Jews and Communists and so on.

The US has experimented on blacks, not so much natives. The fact is, Nazi Germany is the worst nation to have ever existed. No other nation was based on so much hate. Fuck nazis.

The Reds never started burning villages and murdering people on a similar scope as the Nazis. They moved around ethnic minorities mostly to avoid conflict. One could at least argue that gulags could be justified as keeping the country safe. If you lose the Communist government, shit is gonna suck way worse for a long while.

>Nazi Germany is the worst nation to have ever existed.
That would be France. Nazi Germany is close second though.

all of this is true. the only reason why i counted his point as "valid" is because from a numbers pov the "killings" are comparable

I imagine 1943 Germany would be willing to make use of just about anyone willing to shoot a rifle at Russians.

Britain commited organised genocide on the boers

this is any sad leftist excuse for the multicultural SS divisions

The Red weren't in constant engagement with partisans.

The Nazis also genuinely believed the elimination of the Jews was necessary for the safety of the nation.

Proof weebs should be permabanned and possibly jailed

>Not even the soviets

Quit this board immediately.

Why are you reddit fucks on this site

>Implying there's anything wrong with hate
In the words of the immortal Lee Ving, hatred is purity

Destruction battalions in the baltics you commie scum

Who do you think undermined and gave Germany up in the First World War? Who do you think attempted a Communist revolt not long after? To keep your country safe, the enemy must be detained during war time.

>what was Imperial Japan
>What was the clusterfuck of massacres in SouthEast Asia and China targeted at the Chinese exclusively
>What was Sook Ching in Singapore
>What was the rape of Nanjing
>What was Unit 731

I dunno about Nazi Germany, but Imperial Japan comes pretty close.

Is there a reason the West has a squeaky clean record coming out of WW2 yet their enemies were the biggest monsters to ever grace the Earth? Are the leaders of the free world so benevolent and righteous that World War 2 really was just a fight of good versus evil? The historical narrative would certainly tell you so.

In the most simple terms.

The West won

I know that, yes. I just want people to stop welcoming the West as the champions of freedom, democracy, and human rights, when we both know there are two sides to this story. One just never got out.

You're right, but let's not forget about the Soviet Union during Stalinism.

Because democracies tend to protect human rights better than fascist states.

>inb4 100 posts worth of bitching and damage control

>doestn meant hey werent going to send them to the camps.

Are you retarded?
They were a highly agressive imperialistic force bound to exploit their subjegated nations, but they wouldnt have gassed their allies for the fact of being muslim or a nongerman ally.

Thats as ridiculous as saying they would have genocided the italians after winning the war for not being blonde.

Just because the soviets didnt call them deathcamps doenst mean the incredible high morality rates in siberian guglags, or the nourishment deprivation of ucrainian subjects was not intentional.

Compares to the Axis, the West was all of those things.

>they moved ethnic groups to avoid conflict

They genocided a whole bunch of baltic and finno-ugric ethnics by scattering them across the whole of russia.
Russians were moved into estonia in order to weaken it.

Do the Soviet Politboro posters in here not realize that they tried to erase literally every ethnicity inside their borders?

>Holodomor

> tried to erase literally every ethnicity
By giving them national autonomies and helping to create their own writing language?

Not intentional like Indian Famine under Brits

That's very debatable honestly. It's about 50/50.

> Nazi Germany was socialist

Your retardation is showing

The Americans
Soviets
France
Britain
Turks and pretty much every colonial or world power

That's only the korenizatsia period which ended with Stalin and was followed by the most intense russification.

No fair, the eternal anglo did all its genociding before 1940

>Squeaky Clean
>What is "The Home Islands First" Strategy and pissing off all of India
>What is the American-Japanese Internment

And that's just two of the things I know of offhand.

Guess who won and who writes the history books.

>I freely admit their that their past history is superior to our own
HITLER CONFIRMED KEK. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD

There are no innocent peoples, only innocent persons.

Yeah, I guess Hitler was cool with letting Allahus die for him.

Mu-muh-muh-sixgojillion.

What is MKUltra? Something that happened AFTER WWII even.

It's nice to see that Veeky Forums is still just /pol/ with dates.

Please, show me how my post is wrong in any way.

Hitler personally adored Islam, he just found it completely incompatible with Germany, which was Christian for like thousand years by the time.

In fact he went as far as to state that if Germans were muslims, nazism wouldn't be needed.

How does this hold againt all the stuff germany did during ww2, and please dont tell me you are a holocaust denier or something.

Not only that, he was helping the Indian nationalist get their independence.

His main "racism" was against the Jews, which literally every other european country and the US loathed. His was more passionate due to the circumstances, but still there was nothing really unique about Hitler's master race ideology. In fact it was because of master race ideology held by the America/Britain/etc that made Japs pull out of League of Nations. The US had its own concentration camp where they rounded up all the Japs and put them in camps. France wasn't innocent either in its desire to be a colonialistic empire during WWII and after WWII. They threatened to leave NATO and the UN if the US didn't help them get their colonies under control. Hence Vietnam war.

The main arguably detestable thing Hitler and the Nazis did were really the human experiments and the mass killing of innocents, NOT their racial agenda. That was common as dirt.

The West won, as another said. They get to make the records of who did what wrong and what right. The fire bombing (not nuke) and the killing of millions of civilians by the US isn't taught in American primary education. The best we get is "US won the war" and then you get the Iwajima propaganda picture. The amount of racial propaganda and the cruelty to civilians are common in the war by all actors.

>he was helping the Indian nationalist get their independence
Wow, what a great man, trying to help Indians achieve independence out of goodwill and totally not to destabilise the British.

Do you really believe all the acts in war have only single purpose?

War is won through efficiency. If a single act can serve multiple purpose, then that will be a victory in itself.

Helping the Indians is a fact. Its also a fact that its to destabalize the British forces.

Can i get a source? I am interested in this. I know he had remarks about Muslims.

There is a book about a CIA offical named Ruzi Nazar. He was born in Turkestan/SSCB, fought in WW2 first for reds then for Germans. He has a interesting story and explains Muslims soldiers of Germany.

sooooo edgy

You only discovered tip of ice berg. Truth is much deeper.
They not only murdered whites mostly by various means but also allied themselves with many non whites fighting European colonialism.

Nazi were really most anty white faction.

>holohoax

Why did the Nazis have such weird ideas about religion? A lot of them were against Christianity, but apparently fucking Islam seemed more appropriate?

islam has poligamy, reduces women to breeding machines and glorifies warior culture, plus fhurer could call up all muslims to jihad against britain and soviets

how does that not compute?

>denouncing literal genocide is Reddit
Fuck off /pol/

Japan pulled out of the League of Nations because they illegally invaded Manchuria.
Where the fuck did you get your facts from?

aryanism.net/

its not tho

sure alot of /pol/tards come here and treat it like /pol/ but that dont make it /pol/

>. The deaths of the natives can mostly be contributed to disease

>A lot of them were against Christianity, but apparently fucking Islam seemed more appropriate?

I think it was more from a pragmatic perspective of which could be more easily allied with or coercable.

Christianity which was meek and timid, promoted turning the other cheek and pacifiscm - what good would that be for the Nazi military machine or military ambitions? Islam at least had a concept of war ingrained into it, fighters who believed in an afterlife even if killed whilst fighting (the matyr), and strands of fanaticism which could be molded into fighting forces which we've seen well after WWII with the global Jihad phenomenon. Of course they'd rather an islamic group than a christian group if war was their game.