Your honest thoughts on Nazism as a historical phenomenon

Nazi Germany was the worst thing to happen to German independence since fucking Charlemagne

The second part of the French Revolution

What happens when you put a bleeding heart liberal vegetarian in charge

>The second part of the French Revolution
It was Bolshevik Revolution.

Socialism was a mistake, especially when it takes place in one country

I see nothing wrong with any of his statements there.

Take Zionism and remove the Jews

the part about homosexuals is wrong, they killed lesbians too, but they were punished for "anti-social behavior" not homosexuality

Hitler was right.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=wBvCIGq44eY

Germans and Austrians being the villains of the European continent, business as usual

The height of human achievement. For 14 years, humanity ran at its full capacity of spirit, ingenuity and innovation.

Bunch of creeps gain power. Denouement of their treachery is that tens of thousands of German girls get viciously gang raped while the leaders of the regime are off blowing their own brains out.

Yeah, it was quite a phenomenon.

German nationalists were pushed to desperation by the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

Their attempt to gain equal footing with the major empires of the day (France, Britain, Russia) resulted in them getting tamped down.

They were so hopeless after having the nationalists ambitions ruined that they adopted wholesale the doctrine of neo-imperialism that the great powers pioneered in the new world and Siberia.

They inflicted those same harsh methods on Europe, occupying it, and planning a genocide similar to what happened to the American Indians and the peoples in Siberia.

The Nazi's basically tried to bureaucratize the worst excesses of the European imperialist system. The main difference between the Nazi's and empires they copied was that they put an emphases on the killing of rivals, rather than expanding trade.

>The height of human achievement
A shitty
>empire
that was destroyed by it's leaders incompetance as a strategist, and his arrogance that caused him to think he was the opposite.

THe purpose of art was propaganda; any art that disagreed with the establishment or by races that triggered Hitler was destroyed. Great authors, scientists, philosophers such as Kafka, Freud and Einstein were viewed as degenerate and were either forced to leave their countries or were kicked out.

The "great architecture" was just designed to scare the shit out of people. It's actually quite ugly.

Frankly, the only things of value that came out of nazi germany was the obvious fact that smoking caused cancer and the rocket, which was actually around in 1926 and can be attributed to an American scientist.

They knew that if they did not have a censored police state then they would not be allowed to keep their control, so through brute force they kept power.

Only the self indoctrinated would actually think they'd want to live in a Nazi world.

Nazism was essentially a response to communism, a mass political movement originating from the right instead of the left.

As a phenomenon what Nazism truly represented is what can arise from a deep distrust and hatred of the existing political establishment, and an equal distrust of socialist alternatives.

>Harsh terms

Relatively kind compared to what the Germans forced on the Russians.

A NEET turned nationalist ends up in control of his country and acquires complete freedom to execute his imperial and racial fantasies. It was of the most bizarre things to ever happen.

Except Russia reversed most of it.

>redpanels
Nope.

I feel bad that my people didn't end it by itself. Eventually it destroyed Germany as a nation imho

Authoritarians got what they wanted, then what they deserved.

It had some good aspects that will be eternally demonized because of there association with the Nazis, and they're horrible aspects.

And that's this is the real reason to dislike the Nazis.

I think Rasputin was more bizarre.

>the nazis were totally evil and monsters! Fuck them! xDD
>this is totally my own opinion, there's no outside influences that would lead me to this conclusion!

>the nazis were totally evil and monsters! Fuck them! xDD
Where did he say that?

Ran by drug addicts, pedophiles, and occult enthusiasts (AKA precursors to NEETs and D&D players)

Allowed for communism to destroy even more culture

Split Germany for nearly the rest of the century

All in all, a fucking mess. Anyone who thinks it was good or anyone that idolizes Nazism is a fucking idiot or fedora.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any mention of "killing deliberately, methodically an entire race" in feminist works

nice le angry mgtow red pill pol nazi meme, though.

Just another short-lived empire that lived and died with their charismatic leader

You know you're going to be bombarded with pictures of Radical feminists ranting about the destruction of White Men. You realize that don't you.

>NEETs and D&D players
im not a nazi

>I don't see any mention of "killing deliberately, methodically an entire race"

They want to kill an entire sex though.

>this much autism
No, being a feminist will not help you get laid. Sorry!

>mfw reading Hitler's biography and books about national socialism and volkish movement
Nazism was a joke that went too far.

Amazing, I get hard just thinking about it coming back. The only people who hate it are liberals and literal cuckolds. Jews hate it when Europeans do it, but secretly enjoy practicing genocide and ethno-nationalism when they do it. Hitler was probably the incarnation of a god.

this desu, and WWII could have been easily avoided if the British weren't so adamant about keeping Germany down.
>but muh poles!
So Germany can't invade Poland but Russia can? top kek, the UK got what it deserved when Hitler BTFO their empire and forced them to ask big brother America to help them.

Nobody should be allowed to invade Poland, it's God's nation.

Cringed.

>if the British weren't so adamant about keeping Germany down
Funny, I seem to recall Britain desperately appeasing Hitler with the hopes that they could both avoid war and have a strong Germany to counter future U.S.S.R. aggression/expansion.

>So Germany can't invade Poland but Russia can?
The UK went to war with Germany because they told Hitler not to invade Poland in light of his flagrant disregard of the Munich Agreement.
Why would they want to drag the U.S.S.R. into the mix if they could avoid it?

It wasn't either right wing or left wing.

Funny, I seem recall a British MP having the campaign slogan, "We shall squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeak!" That was in 1918, before the war had ended.

Once victorious, the Allies disfigured Germany's political geography, and sanctioned it so that people were starving. Only after Germany was resurgent, in the mid-1930s, did they back-peddle and try to make amends.

It's the lesser version of fascism.

D'Annunzian fascism is for the superior in Mind and Spirit.

>"they"
> Posts a screenshot from a tumblr

I never realized that feminists were the sum total of a girl in a supernatural shirt sitting in the back of a twelfth grade sociology class

It's just propaganda. He said what people wanted to hear. Lloyd George was largely pro-German.

>Unlike Clemenceau and Orlando, Lloyd George on the whole stood on the side of generosity and moderation.
>He did not want to utterly destroy the German economy and political system—as Clemenceau demanded—with massive reparations.
>Lloyd George was also responsible for the pro-German shift in the peace conditions regarding borders of Poland. Instead of handing over Upper Silesia (2,073,000 people), and the southern part of East Prussia (720,000 people) to Poland as was planned before, the plebiscite was organised. Danzig (366,000 people) was organised as Free City of Danzig.

And it's not like he was the only one.

>When on 12 July 1922, Germany demanded a moratorium on reparation payments, tension developed between the French government of Raymond Poincaré and the Coalition government of David Lloyd George. The British Labour Party demanded peace and denounced Lloyd George as a troublemaker. It saw Germany as the martyr of the postwar period and France as vengeful and the principal threat to peace in Europe. The tension between France and Britain peaked during a conference in Paris in early 1923, by which time the coalition led by Lloyd George had been replaced by the Conservatives. The Labour Party opposed the occupation of the Ruhr throughout 1923, which it rejected as French imperialism. The British Labour Party believed it had won when Poincaré accepted the Dawes Plan in 1924.[23]

I know it's from Wikipedia, but this is basic knowledge.

>it's just propaganda
>links wikipedia

Yes, it's propaganda. The British public wanted revenge, but Lloyd George himself was pro-German.

>links Wikipedia
So what? You will find this in every textbook.

the slogan might have been used as propaganda, but they really did sever part of Germany from the rest of the country. And this happened all while US Pres Woodrow Wilson had the Germans convinced that a peace would be negotiated following the ideals of national self-determination.

stabbed in the back indeed.

Wilson wasn't the only person there. It was a compromise.

One of the most misunderstood and misrepresented ideas in history.

The ideology itself is literally all-encompassing. It speaks to every single facet of human knowledge. Once you study and begin to understand what they were trying to do you can't help but be amazed.

Listen to the speech 'Nazism: The Only Answer to Communism' by George Lincoln Rockwell with an open mind and I guarantee you will see the clear light of reason and understanding.

I say all this and I'm not even white or a poltard

after listening to the first part of the speech i noticed some glaring contradictions. Firstly, he mentions that white Christian civilisation is a wonderful thing that has been built by the white race and should be preserved separately from other civilisations. Yet over the centuries technology and ideas have spread from one race to the other, affecting the development of their neighbours (take, for example, the invention of paper in Asia and its transfer through the Middle East and into Europe). Religion, language, many things are influenced and changed by people of other races. To say each civilisation ought to be viewed as completely independent from its neighbours is simple minded to say the least. This is basic knowledge. Secondly, when talking about the strengths and weaknesses of each race he compares the situation to how he would treat his children. Surely I don't need to explain how offensive that would seem to others. His mention of wanting to be courteous and not wanting to insult anyone at the beginning of his speech is simply either a lie or the result of a painful naivety. Thirdly, when he gets on to the subject of gays, he makes a distinction between them and 'regular' people, yet to a gay man his sexual orientation would seem as natural a part of him as his arm or leg. At that point he started getting pretty riled up and his speech just became a matter of complaining about how many gays there were. Nazism puts a cap on human development by asserting that because we are animals we should act no better than wild beasts, where simple strength prevails. Because we are human we have the ability to empathize and treat others the way we would want to be treated. Nazism denies this by saying that we cannot go beyond being mere animals. It is a clumsy and brutish ideology and its defeat in the 20th century will go down in history as one of mankind's greatest victories.

I understand what you're saying with the first point and I more or less agree with you. This was during the period of 'race-mixing' or 'integration' in the US, I honestly just think he was frightened of America becoming a giant Detroit or some other ghetto.

With reference to his point about children, I can easily see how this could be misunderstood (it took me a few times to actually get what he was saying here). Rockwell believed that Sub-Saharan Africans were an "immature" race, as they have more or less, a savage culture devoid of civilisation and advancement. Therefore, integrating African-Americans into mainstream American civilisation would be akin to bringing a small child to a business meeting - they're simply too immature to properly function. I don't think he meant for it to be offensive, from his perspective he was pointing out the truth, and that was taboo to do. Being offended by the truth isn't the truth's fault.

Finally, about the gays, I'll once again mention that this was during the 1960's when it was the norm to give gays a hard time. He has mentioned many times that humor is one of the methods he used to connect with the average college student. I have to admit I am partial to his humor and I think he was damn funny, his father was actually a famous comedian. My closest friends is a homo and he adores Rockwell.

When talking about man being animals, his point wasn't that man is just an animal so acting like wild beasts is okay. He was saying that intellectuals tend to get far too conceited and forget that at the end of the day, they poop and shit just like the lowest of mammals.

Anyway, thanks for actually taking the time to listen to some of the speech. I hope you found a different perspective interesting

like a big meat grinder that whilst borders and emperors fail and fall the shadows of its dust continues to wirl & spin & churn to the point of the globalised phenomenom we currently have. just look at the flag. like a windmill. spreading the sands of shit across the globe like a foul wind from the 7th planet

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any mention of "killing deliberately, methodically an entire race" in feminist works
I will correct you because that's what the Negro Project was, is, and forever will be.

blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

Feminism is just the way Hitlerism reinvented itself, complete with esoteric neopagan stupidity (i.e. Wicca).

>no true scotsmaning my sides to the troposphere

Are Sub-Saharan Africans really as immature as he makes them out to be? I'm sure there are plenty of blacks in America who are successful and hold down jobs and admittedly there are plenty who don't too. But is it correct to generalise them all? Also, if we are products of the evolutionary process and must always improve upon ourselves (as I'm sure Rockwell would agree we should), then is it not fair to give Sub-Saharan Africans the ability to improve themselves in a civilisation that would better enable them to do so (i.e. Western civilisation)? The more other races become integrated into more developed societies, the more opportunities for education and personal advancement present themselves. It only follows from that other races would 'catch up', so to speak, if given the opportunity to do so through proper integration.

You make a fair point about it being the 60's and Rockwell saying nothing new about the gays, I suppose hearing it from a 21st century perspective it would seem offensive.

I agree that intellectuals sometimes get so caught up in their ideas that they forget what the real world is like, but at the same time I feel as though his ideas are too far at the other end of the spectrum. As someone who is mixed race I've always felt that the ties to my country have been mainly cultural and I'm very patriotic even though I'm not fully white. I've never felt anything else other than British, so I don't understand why Nazism sees the need to tie race to nationalism when you can feel an incredible sense of loyalty to your country (which is a great thing) without being a member of the primary demographic.

It was interesting to listen to, it's a shame that speeches like that aren't more well known. It's sad that today many people follow the line of hating ideologies their parents hated without attempting to understand them. If we don't try and understand the other side our views are never challenged and we become too complacent.

An overall regrettable developement

>"I speak at some colleges, they come with all sorts of troops to run me out, and do you know who's in the troops that come to stop me from speaking by force and violence? Usually, it's the people that preach the loudest that Communists must be allowed to speak!"

And yet Britain was the country seeking the lowest figure of reparations from Germany and the other Central powers. A figure lower than any of the other European receiver states believed would be tolerated by public opinion. And they continued to press for lower reparations even after the final figure had been set by the Reparations committee in 1921. Not that British position was not born of magnanimity, it was simply that…

“The British pressure for a lower total and the continuing British effort thereafter to reduce German reparations derived from an assumption that restoration of British economic prosperity depended upon the upon a rapid return to pre-war patterns of trade which in turn required an immediate German economic revival. As British leaders assumed that sizeable German reparations payments would delay this sequence of events or overstimulate German exports to the detriment of British producers, they opposed enforcement of substantial reparations requirements upon Germany.”

Sally Marks 'The Myth of Reparations' Central European History, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Sep., 1978), p. 236

Fascism is the dying wheeze of capitalism. Property owners in the Weimar Republic turned to the Nazi party to protect their interests against socialism.

more of a bulwark to Comintern than observed for

Not him, but Rockwell did advocate giving Blacks in the US time and room to develop "properly".

One of his big points was ending all foreign aid to Israel and instead using that money to invest on Black schools and businesses.

oy vey

>I will take care of the jews
But he failed.

pretty cool uniforms

certainly, this could be true. But what do you think of Nazism as a historical phenomenon?

To me, it is clear that Germany's lose of WWI, and the terms of the peace, led directly to WWII and Nazism.

i love this board

>As a phenomenon what Nazism truly represented is what can arise from a deep distrust and hatred of the existing political establishment, and an equal distrust of socialist alternatives.

rule 1 dealing with stormfags: any objective evidence is just propaganda from the establishment.
they're really no different from the "muh patriarchy" feminazis

t. Moshe Spielberg

File name got me

>Trump is a nazi
Original

>deep distrust and hatred of the existing political establishment
>and an equal distrust of socialist alternatives.
I'm not saying Trump's gonna set up death camps and go for Lebensraum, but you have to admit some of the underlying rhetorical parallels are interesting.

It was an interesting philosophy that broke the idea of right vs left. I think it's the sort of thing that is different enough that it can be classified as just as revolutionary as the enlightenment or the rise of communism. I'm sure nazi branch off ideas would be interesting and it's almost a shame we never got to see that. That being said, from a political standpoint, I hate them (mostly because they would have gassed me), but from a historical one I admire the innovation and new way of thinking.

I guess I can see it that way. From that line of thinking, you could also link the themes to libertarians like Ron Paul. Ron ins't socialist by any means and a lot of his support came from a distrust of the political establishment.

Oh definitely. The Hitler "not socialist but anti-establishment" archetype is hardly unique to just him and Trump, but I think there are other parallels that separate Ron Paul from the conversation.
>Personality
This is fairly easy. Ron has a pretty squeaky rep with his base but a yuge part of Trump was centered around how strong his personality is, much like Dolfy.
>Fear
"Jews and degenerates are the source of our ills" vs "illegal immigrants, radical Muslims, and criminals are the source of our ills". Trump's case clearly has far more merit and he obviously won't set up death camps for them but their methods of finding groups to concentrate anger on are similar.
>Nostalgia
Dolfy had that Third Reich, "back to the Greater Fatherland of our forefathers before the Versailles treaty" bit, while Trump's bit is the "working America with all of those fancy manufacturing jobs before we were betrayed by NAFTA" bit.
They're hardly comparable morally but I'm interested in the similarities of their tactics.

If they won it would have been amazing
Europe would be white and less degenerate
Volkism
Style
Traditional values maintained

Look at Europe now, so glad the 'Good Goys' won

>red panels

Yeah, nah.

/pol/ should be banned from Veeky Forums.

Cool uniforms

But shitty ideology, which spawned shitty people.

Wilhelm and Hitler fucked over Germany.

Bismarck would be rolling in his grave.

Anyone who thinks they were "gud BOIS who dindu nuffin" are fucking retarded.

Same goes to those who think the allies were blameless.

>muh white master race
>it would have been better

No it wouldn't have.

Lefty/pol/ should go for a helicopter ride

And you should attend Leningrad

Wilhelm was a figurehead, blame Hindenburg and Ludendorff.

Fair enough...

I miss based Bismarck

I don't get why France and the UK declared war on Germany for invading Poland when after all was said and done the just let the soviets keep it.

Jewish influence (mostly financial) over Western Europe helping Jewish Bolsheviks

That's because you never studies history and foreign relations.

Simply important. Even if i had the power, i would not have prevented the Nazi party from happening

And it took the combined effort of 3 world powers to defeat them.

The only thing they did wrong was lose the war.
youtube.com/watch?v=dRFIumfH3w8

nazi germany sucked for everyone the whole time.