Nazi Evil

Theoretically you can do that in the privacy of your home. However, if the police wants to pin something on you they'll say your music, books or newspaper copies were intended for nazi propaganda, not for domestic consumption. You'll be jailed and you'll learn to love democracy! There was a case I read about in which during a search warrant the police found national socialist/legionaire/fascist "literature" in a guy's home and they sentenced him to 6 months in jail I think.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on October 20, 2006 10:52 am

if i want to sing the marseillezze or Hortst Wessel in my home, no law should deny me that as long as i do not harm anyone.

The law as it stands, I believe, does not stop you from doing this in the privacy of your own home, the law states you are not allowed to do it in public, also if you are found to be in possession of music, books or newspaper copies which could be used to promote nazi propaganda or racial hatred, then its up to you to prove your intentions are otherwise.

Kevin in Deva.

I've noticed any other opinion is inappropriate, distorted. If you care to listen to others and not jump to emotionalism, you would understand that I said the nazis committed crimes, but were they to win, those crimes would have been portrayed as necessary crimes in the fight against against evil. THEIR version of evil.

take care

Hi Imperialist,

I don't think my post was very emotional, I think a post that was really emotional would read something like this:

'Nazis, Mother F**king murderers' etc.

I probably did misunderstand your point. But, I think the Nazis must have believed what they were doing was part of a fight against evil otherwise they would not have done it. Though, it depends what you think good and evil mean.

Even if the Nazis had won, it would still have been possible to judge what they were doing was evil, just going by the kind of criteria and standards the Christians set out 2000 years ago, as one example. Also, people living in Soviet Russia did not stop criticising the Soviet system, even though they won.

Generally, something that is frustrating is the automatic assumption that criticising Nazi Germany is accepting 'Allied Propaganda' or 'received opinion' without thought. I have noticed that often on this forum people make this assumption.

However, sometimes it seems like the same people are actually only reacting to Allied Propaganda themselves, and have no other knowledge of Nazi Germany itself. Whenever I have quoted from Nazi documents, or cited concrete examples of what I would consider evidence for 'evil' attitudes, these examples are carefully ignored. As is discussion of the nature of Nazism based in study of what the Nazis themselves said and believed.

Instead of any of this, the fixation seems to be on talking about what an undefined majority of people in the 'West' assume about Nazism and the place these assumptions have in their idea of their Nations history and place in the world.

the law is injust since it is based on the will of the few, not of the many.

I've noticed any other opinion is inappropriate, distorted. If you care to listen to others and not jump to emotionalism, you would understand that I said the nazis committed crimes, but were they to win, those crimes would have been portrayed as necessary crimes in the fight against against evil. THEIR version of evil.

take care

Hi Imperialist,

I don't think my post was very emotional, I think a post that was really emotional would read something like this:

'Nazis, Mother F**king murderers' etc.

I probably did misunderstand your point. But, I think the Nazis must have believed what they were doing was part of a fight against evil otherwise they would not have done it. Though, it depends what you think good and evil mean.

Even if the Nazis had won, it would still have been possible to judge what they were doing was evil, just going by the kind of criteria and standards the Christians set out 2000 years ago, as one example. Also, people living in Soviet Russia did not stop criticising the Soviet system, even though they won.

Generally, something that is frustrating is the automatic assumption that criticising Nazi Germany is accepting 'Allied Propaganda' or 'received opinion' without thought. I have noticed that often on this forum people make this assumption.

However, sometimes it seems like the same people are actually only reacting to Allied Propaganda themselves, and have no other knowledge of Nazi Germany itself. Whenever I have quoted from Nazi documents, or cited concrete examples of what I would consider evidence for 'evil' attitudes, these examples are carefully ignored. As is discussion of the nature of Nazism based in study of what the Nazis themselves said and believed.

Instead of any of this, the fixation seems to be on talking about what an undefined majority of people in the 'West' assume about Nazism and the place these assumptions have in their idea of their Nations history and place in the world.

I should have said as well, do you think that you aught necessarily to attribute any value in itself to the Nazi idea of evil?

Did they believe what they were doing was actually part of a fight against evil, and did they act as if it was?

What exactly did Good and Evil mean to the Nazis? What did it mean to the Allies?

This could be a good and fruitful debate.

I apologise for my other post, it slightly missed addressing exactly the point you were making.

the law is injust since it is based on the will of the few, not of the many.

It might be news to you but most laws are bought into being by the elected representatives of the people, and through the motions of the elected government and not by mob rule.

In any normal European country for example, the government (a minority) in its own right, representing the majority (the people) enact the laws for the majority, thats their job, and most people with commen sense accept this.

I am sure criminals feel the same way about the law as you do, because it prevents them doing what they want.

You either conform, which most of the people do, or you have anarchy.

This method of enacting the laws has become the tried and tested way, and not through use of brute force, repression and the gun.

Kevin in Deva

Right. You are using platitudes to defend something that is wrong. why has this law not taken effect in the US, for example?

or in most of the world, if we should continue...

there are only a handful of countries in this world that have this imbecile law, it is not like it is like murder, rape or theft, which are treated aproximatively the same all over the world.
so if it is not globally valid, why should it be valid here? this just comes to prove my argument that it is nothing more than a made/up law by a interest group. NOTHING MORE.
and why would anyone here respect it anyway, knowing that if i cross the border, i can wear the damn tshirt and nobody will hassle me?

what kind of credibility this law do you think it has?

my estimation is that it will not be to long until it will be taken out of the penal code since it is stupid. in 50 years there will be nobody even remembering the ww2 except from hearsay and rumor. and after all this "NAZIS WUZ EVUUUL" noise will fade, pretty much nobody will care, since there will be other dictators that will "fight evil" and "defend democracy with carpet bombing"....

This post has been edited by Suparatu on October 20, 2006 02:13 pm

"there are only a handful of countries in this world that have this imbecile law, it is not like it is like murder, rape or theft, which are treated aproximatively the same all over the world.
so if it is not globally valid, why should it be valid here? this just comes to prove my argument that it is nothing more than a made/up law by a interest group. NOTHING MORE.
and why would anyone here respect it anyway, knowing that if i cross the border, i can wear the damn tshirt and nobody will hassle me?"

Well if was not a uniform law that was passed on the same date by all the European countries together for a start. Each country bought it into being shortly after WW2 ended when the Nazi atrocities were still fresh in the minds of their people and long before there was an E.U.

There is no such thing as a global law, but all countries have their own laws to do with Murder, Rape, Theft and the promotion of Racial hatred and Terrorism.
And as of yet when you live in a country you must abide by the LAW no matter what you think about it.

The laws banning the wearing of such items and symbols was enacted by the countries who suffered the most at the hands of that mudering bunch of Nazi bastards in WW2, Romania was not one, who qualified seeing as they were not invaded by the Nazi, but were a willing ally, and it is now part of the law of the European Union. But, Romania had the foresight to adopt shortly after she escaped from under communist domination.

It was also passed to stop people from being allowed to spread the lies and hatred of the faschist party ever again.

Again why the moderators of this site allow neo-nazis to post is beyond me.

Kevin in Deva.

[edited by admin]

Care to back up your statement with figures?

So far there have been many opinions expressed in this topic. This is supposed to be a more serious forum, so I would expect participants who make one sentence posts to start putting more depth into what they write.

I would also appreciate it if you won't resort to personal attacks.

Congratulations! You just managed to transform all the people that ever fought against tyranny into criminals, since according to what you have said a citizen must obey the law of the country he lives in NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT IT. so the good people of North Korea must NEVER try to remore Kim from power, SINCE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
Great argument, man. i am overwhelmed.

i thought you were supposed to be AGAINST all this EVIL and stuff...

Why not in the US then? or Russia, who was the coutry most affected bu the war?
why not here, because according to your argument, they should have been among the first to do it.

Why then do we have the law. since it does not qualify among the countries most affected by the nazis?

and by the way, i would not exactly call it willing. when you have the real deal of the war, the true godzilla of that war, not hitler, but Stalin, breathing down your neck, "willing ally" does not accuratly describe the situation in which we were in then.

oh man. there sure are no lies in the romanian political arena today. no sir. all gone.

Because it would be a fascist thing to do to kill the voice of one man.

almost everything written on this forum is an opinion. i have spoken to many university professors and lived many years in campuses to know the pulse of the young generation. and i have never met one man to say - gee, i sure am glad there is a law supressing my right to free speech. i am sure nobody here did.

Also Victor, since you told me to refrain from personal attacks, why have you not said the same to new connaught, who has constantly been calling me a nazi.

how did you miss that and saw only my doings?
looks like discrimination....

Sorry, discussing about a controversial law and philosophysing about the meaning of good/evil in politics and history with a particular focus on the allied/nazi perceptions of good/evil does not qualify as neo-naziism.

take care

Hi Imp,

Nobody proposed that it did, did they? That is purely your spin.

But ask yourself this: Why would anyone with no apparent wider interest in freedom of speech want to be able to sing the Horst Wessel song in public places if they were not a Nazi? It is a song associated exclusively with Nazism. Horst Wessel was a Nazi street thug killed in gang violence around whom a myth was fabricated, to which the song is central. And do we need to repeat how awful Nazism was?

If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck, it is a duck.

Cheers,

Sid.

According to this post people should not be really concerned about their freedom of speech.

This is a weird assumption, since i would imagine people would hate to have their freedom of speech restrained. Aparently not, according to Sid.

The genodice of the native american nations was just as awful as what the nazis did, if not worse.

Remember what Buffalo Bill Cody used to say about Indians - a good indian is a dead indian. And now this guy is a "popular figure" in the States.

Why is nobody trying to ban this guy? Double standars maybe? Which is 99% of the western view of the nazi regime - they were bad, we fought them hence we are normally good. hallelujah.

I observe with sadness that this "George Bush" view of the world, us agains them, good versus EVIL, is slowly creeping into the more academic circles as well. Hence the foam at the mouth concerning the censorship of one thing and the praise of another.

I repeat.In my mind there is NO moral difference between what the nazis did and what the white people did to the native american nations. The only difference is that one lost (hence everyone blames it) and the other won (hence it is GOOD).

Maybe in the discussions you usually take part in everything is an opinion, but in the discussions on historical topics on this forum, there usually is a source behind a cathegorical statement, or at least we encourage this practice. This kind of "opinion" topics are pointless IMO and beyond the scope of this forum, not to mention time and nerve consuming for the administrators. There are plenty of other forums where such topics can be discussed.

I must draw your attention to the fact that in English "you" is used not only for the singular, but also for the plural, and after adressing the members as a group, it is only logical to conclude that "you" is used in the plural form.

Maybe in the discussions you usually take part in everything is an opinion, but in the discussions on historical topics on this forum, there usually is a source behind a cathegorical statement, or at least we encourage this practice. This kind of "opinion" topics are pointless IMO and beyond the scope of this forum, not to mention time and nerve consuming for the administrators. There are plenty of other forums where such topics can be discussed.

I must draw your attention to the fact that in English "you" is used not only for the singular, but also for the plural, and after adressing the members as a group, it is only logical to conclude that "you" is used in the plural form.

By the way, why have you not publicly told New Connaught ranger to stop calling me a nazi? Which is supposed to be an insult around here...

or maybe you do not see it that way.