[Rei Murasame]

'Started' it and is also not sorry! After subjecting the world to the excesses of liberalism for so long, isn't it remarkable that liberalism always complains about everyone else's violence but never its own?

I recall just a few months ago, Wolfman, that you were celebrating as NATO destroyed Libya. Incidentally, both myself and FRS were against that crony-keepi... er I mean peace-keeping action.

In fact, we are possibly the only two people who were not stridently against the idea of the 'African Union' and the 'Mediterranean Union II', and the only two posters in favour of a unified 'Arab socialist region', and the only two posters who are able to stare back straight across the virtual table on PoFo at Israeli posters and maintain that stance unwaveringly.

Contrary to what you've accused us of!

[Wolfman]

'Started' it and is also not sorry! After subjecting the world to the excesses of liberalism for so long, isn't it remarkable that liberalism always complains about everyone else's violence but never its own?

Nothing Liberalism has done can compare to the evils of Fascism.

I recall just a few months ago, Wolfman, that you were celebrating as NATO destroyed Libya. Incidentally, both myself and FRS were against that crony-keepi... er I mean peace-keeping action.

I did nothing of the sort.

[Rei Murasame]

You really think that Gadaffi and the Green Book ought to still be in place in Libya then?

[Potemkin]

Nothing Liberalism has done can compare to the evils of Fascism.

The Nazis were merely a bunch of gifted amateurs compared to the British Empire, Wolfman. They made up for it with their enthusiasm and work ethic, but they lacked staying power....

[Wolfman]

Rei the difference between not liking Gadaffi and liking what happened in the revolution is massive. So massive that you conflating the two makes me a little you're able to tie your shoes.

The Nazis were merely a bunch of gifted amateurs compared to the British Empire, Wolfman. They made up for it with their enthusiasm and work ethic, but they lacked staying power....

I'd appreciate seeing numbers, time frame, and other crimes against humanity.

[Rei Murasame]

Rei the difference between not liking Gadaffi and liking what happened in the revolution is massive.

No it isn't, unless you'd like to select some invisible Schroedinger's cat type third option which we both know is not in the options box.

[Wolfman]

So, I'm not allowed to say "I don't like Gadaffi and think Libya will probably be better off without him, but I think that the US operations in Libya have been less then I would like, and I doubt very much that the reconstruction will go smoothly and will probably end up with some other idiot in charge"? I can only say "Gadaffi is a saint, and the US are a bunch of genocidal despots and the evil empire for daring to disapprove of him" or "Fuck yeah, 'Merika!"

[Rei Murasame]

Well, when me or FRS or the others attempt to present such a narrative for Axis interventions in everywhere, no matter how we word it you will still perceive that we are sympathetic to Axis' overall grievance and geopolitical agenda, and we are merely quibbling over the execution and the outcome.

You'd say to us that the third box is still us essentially voting against liberal democracy.

Much like how "I don't like Gadaffi and think Libya will probably be better off without him" is a vote against the existence of the African Union in actuality.

[Wolfman]

Well, when me or FRS or the others attempt to present such a narrative for Axis interventions in everywhere, no matter how we word it you will still perceive that we are sympathetic to Axis' overall grievance and geopolitical agenda, and we are merely quibbling over the execution and the outcome.

The Axis started a slew of wars for no reason, killed 90 million people for no fucking reason, and tried to institute an ideology that would have collapsed beyond repair had they managed to pull some magic out of their asses and won. The US was helping free the Libyans from a dictator after his people revolted against him. Hitler and friends sought to enslave or murder the world. The comparison between WWII and the intervention in Libya is fallacious at best.

Much like how "I don't like Gadaffi and think Libya will probably be better off without him" is a vote against the existence of the African Union in actuality.

In what drunken way is that?

[Rei Murasame]

The Axis started a slew of wars for no reason, killed 90 million people for no fucking reason, and tried to institute an ideology that would have collapsed beyond repair had they managed to pull some magic out of their asses and won. The US was helping free the Libyans from a dictator after his people revolted against him.

In other words, it's almost as though I am now talking to Barack Obama's White House press secretary here, for all the progress that is being made.

In what drunken way is that?

Well, rhetoric aside what do you think the point of the peace keeping action in Libya was, again?

[Daktoria]

Well, you did start a war for no fucking reason.

This...

...is why Britain needed Poland.

As Klausewitz said, "War is the continuation of politics by other means." Britain's diplomatic history was all about balance of powers and making sure it was on the winning politically correct side before bullets started flying.

Nazi Germany lacked diplomatic savvy, and the idea of trying to ally with someone who acted without even a token of refinement would be pure lunacy. One favor would be looked for after the next until the entire British ruling class was displaced by thugs. British identity itself would be annihilated.

[Far-Right Sage]

Your ideology killing 90 million people is nonsensical?

Fascism has not killed 90 million people.

More to the point, if you continue to claim that England has been liberal since the Glorious Revolution, the United States was founded on liberalism, and indeed many great powers have been liberal entities for decades if not centuries by now, then what is your excuse for the hundreds of conflicts started by liberal regimes?

Or were all such conflicts, from the Second Boer War to the 2011 French bombing of the Ivory Coast forced upon liberal states by evildoers and defensive in nature?

What evidence?

The clear evidence of ethnic cleansing and genocidal events occurring throughout history, presented by multiple users from different ideological backgrounds, while you continue to trumpet NS Germany’s war conduct as some unprecedented anomaly.

Well, you did start a war for no fucking reason.

That’s just wildly untrue.

So, because the alternative was dealing with things reasonably, or Communism, Fascism is somehow OK? Bullshit.

Yes, dealing with things “reasonably”…

If we as a so called authoritarian state, which differs from the democracies by having the people behind them, had also complied with all the sacrifices that the international plutocrats burdened us with; if I had said in 1933, “Esteemed sirs in Geneva, what would you have me do?” “Aha! We will immediately write on the slate: 6 billion for 1933, 1934, 1935, excellent, we well deliver! Is there anything else you would like? Yes, of course Sir, we will also deliver that!” Then they would have said “At last a sensible regime in Germany!” - Adolf Hitler

Since Rei has touched upon the Libyan issue, I suppose the German state should have dismantled offensive weapons programs and traded generously with the liberal “West”, as Qaddafi obviously received such reciprocal and appreciative treatment after embarking upon that wise course.

You started it. You started it in every sense of the word. How the fuck else would you like to look at things?

People of my blood and beliefs acting appropriately toward those forces which surrounded them. It was the right course of action, no matter the outcome.

I recall just a few months ago, Wolfman, that you were celebrating as NATO destroyed Libya. Incidentally, both myself and FRS were against that crony-keepi... er I mean peace-keeping action.

In fact, we are possibly the only two people who were not stridently against the idea of the 'African Union' and the 'Mediterranean Union II', and the only two posters in favour of a unified 'Arab socialist region', and the only two posters who are able to stare back straight across the virtual table on PoFo at Israeli posters and maintain that stance unwaveringly.

Contrary to what you've accused us of!

Most definitely. Excellent points as always.

Has liberal dogma so blinded some that to even conceive of viewing something from a different angle is either taboo or simply impossible?

I have my convictions, as you well know, and stand firm in my beliefs, but my world was never the black and white box Wolfman has locked himself in.

The Axis started a slew of wars for no reason, killed 90 million people for no fucking reason, and tried to institute an ideology that would have collapsed beyond repair had they managed to pull some magic out of their asses and won. The US was helping free the Libyans from a dictator after his people revolted against him. Hitler and friends sought to enslave or murder the world. The comparison between WWII and the intervention in Libya is fallacious at best.

The Axis killed 90 million people?

Hitler sought to enslave the world?

The U.S. was helping free the Libyans from a dictator after his people revolted against him?

This is becoming a charicature of liberalism more than anything else.

Do you actually believe these inane narratives or is there a certain amount of sticking to the line one must do as a representative of liberal hegemony (honest question)?

One favor would be looked for after the next until the entire British ruling class was displaced by thugs. British identity itself would be annihilated.

So the general British identity is (or should be) defined by the wildly skewed social hierarchy maintained by the English upper crust?

Yes, a terrifying notion indeed that Britain in the last century or this one could be taken over by British people.

But again, what you call "thugs" we call farmers, blacksmiths, soldiers, and patriots.

[Demolitionman]

Nothing Liberalism has done can compare to the evils of Fascism.

Destruction of the European soul is a very serious crime.

[AuContraireVoltaire]

Yes, the great celebration of the mass rape of German women and the deliverance of materialist creeds onto the backs of generations of Westerners, my own society (most fortunately never children) indoctrinated by such filth.

I will pass.

Just German women? Are you not aware of the devastation caused by the Germans in the East? with it's scorched earth policy, rape of women (the belief that Slavs were Untermenschen mattered little to much of the rank and file) death marches, summary executions, genocide, looting.

To lament Germany's defeat solely and simply because it engendered the proliferation of Marxist sentiment and the dissemination of Communist politics shows where you stand in regards to humanity and your fellow man.

If 'isms' and more important to you than privation and devastation they cause then I can see you as nothing more than a callous, fanatical crackpot.

[Rich]

Yes, the great celebration of the mass rape of German women and the deliverance of materialist creeds

The Soviet Union under Stalin was not materialist in the sense that you mean. It was profoundly anti materialist. It was the steel sinews of Soviet Bolshevism that held the line against technologically effective and militarily well organised but ultimately weak, effeminate and degenerate Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union very much embodied the spirit of Medieval Christianity and the profoundly dedicated zealoutry of the counter reformation Jesuits. Germany failed to properly mobilise for war. Hitler frittered his time away with Speer on architectural fantasies for a victory that hadn't been earned, while the Bolsheviks were rebuilding factories in the frigid ice of the Ural waste lands. But at least, Hitler was one Nazi who didn't complain about the Soviet rapes. To his undying credit he recognised that the stronger side had won, the Germans had proved weaker and deserved their fate. In fact Hitler tried to ensure that as much of Germany as possible fell into Soviet hands, Of course while the likes of materialists like Speer were already reinventing themselves for a western dominated liberal excuse mongering post war Germany. Hitler unlike our latter day Nazis didn't engaging in the oh its not fair liberal bleeding heart mongering. Modern Nazis whine on about, Dresden being "unfair". Hitler and Gobbels' response was bring it on! Tolkien gives the best description of the relation of fascism to Bolshevism.

as he thought, being deceived-for all those arts and subtle devices, for which he forsook his former wisdom, and which fondly he imagined were his own, came but from Mordor; so that what he made was naught, only a little copy, a child's model or a slave's flattery, of that vast fortress, armoury, prison, furnace of great power, Barad-dûr, the Dark Tower, which suffered no rival, and laughed at flattery, biding its time, secure in its pride and its immeasurable strength.

It was Bolshevism that was the true heir to the Three Hundred and the early Roman Republic not Musolini's joke ideology, or German homosexual recycled Blavatskyism.

[Andropov]

The Germans lay waste to everything west of Moscow, burn entire villages to the ground, kill millions of civilians, and have the audacity to whine about some rapes?

And worse yet, the lingering memory of the bloodied cudgels, those British-held blunt staves which crashed down onto the heads of the Lienz-Cossacks, in the most sickening act of betrayal by Winston Churchill, the man who sold those brave men out to Stalin who then killed them all.

Are you kidding me? They deserved everything they got. Collaboration with a force which literally wished to eradicate their nation from the face of the earth is treason of the very worst kind and should never go unpunished.

Actually, you are cheerleading for the victory of a regime (Soviet Union) which not only raped and tortured, but was a bloodthirsty war-waging regime (bombing and invasion of Finland, occupation of the Baltic states, invasion of Poland in collusion with NS Germany, attempted conquest of Poland in 1920, genocide of Ukrainians, deportations of Koreans, Kazakhs, and other ethnic minorities to Siberia; successful conquest/puppetization of Poland after the war assisted by Western powers, invasion of Hungary, and a multitude of other aggressive actions) which was responsible for the destruction of half of Europe (and its enslavement for half a century) and the intentional and premeditated murder of civilians (not to mention gang rape of children and mothers in front of daughters in Berlin, which German forces had rogue soldiers hanged for should they dare).

-The invasion of Finland was done to secure Karelia, in order to push the border away from Leningrad in anticipation of war with your beloved Nazi Germany. The occupation of the Baltics was likewise done for the same purpose; to push away the front from Russia. If not for the rise of Hitler, these things would never have happened.

-The "invasion" of Poland by the USSR was completely justified, as Poland took land away from Russia in the revolution in which lived Ukranians and Byelorussians. Only ethnically non-Polish areas were taken by the USSR.

-There was no "genocide" of the Ukranians; there is not a single bit of evidence to suggest that the terrible famine was intentional.

-The mass rapes in Germany in 1945 were done almost entirely by penal battalions and can hardly be taken as representative of the Soviet Union as a whole.

Soviet rule made doctors, engineers, scientists, and mathematicians out of the same people your own Nazi Germany saw fit to be only made into illiterate slaves and peasants.

However all I am asking is if you can blame the people of the Soviet Union for fighting under the red flag rather than welcoming the Germans in to kill them?

Blame them for what? Soviet rule saw massive increases in living standards for residents of the former Russian empire. In spite of what Western historians would have you believe, Soviet rule had massive popular support. There are countless stories found in diaries of German troops and commanders chronicling the heroic bravery and determination of Soviet troops, whose resistance against the Germanic hordes was the most ferocious the world had ever seen.

That doesn't rule out the potential of a German-puppet Fascist Ukraine, for instance, to develop and run its own path of patriotism.

A policy of forced colonization and ethnic cleansing of Ukraine by Germans and of Ukranians from their native land, respectively, obviously rules out any regional autonomy.

Clearly you are unfamiliar with Nazi plans for Eastern Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

It was Bolshevism that was the true heir to the Three Hundred and the early Roman Republic not Musolini's joke ideology, or German homosexual recycled Blavatskyism.

I could not agree more.

[Political Interest]

Regardless we can say that both Hitler and Stalin were not very nice people. The defeat of Nazi Germany was good because it meant that the Slavic peoples would not be exterminated. The collapse of the Soviet Union meant that Russian imperialism was dealt a strong blow. I will not blame the Russians for fighting to defend their homeland from extermination and occupation. Equally Soviet excesses were deplorable. The issue is not so black and white.

[AuContraireVoltaire]

Regardless we can say that both Hitler and Stalin were not very nice people..

/Thread

[Mazhi]

The nation exists beyond political preference.

On the contrary. Not only does the nation not exist beyond political preference, but the nation itself is a political and ideological preference.

There is nothing inherent or "eternal" about a nation that makes it a nation. National identity is built by constructing a certain type of political narrative about a group of people, based on the belief that the national and political unit should be congruent, based on a strong identification with a (existing or desired) polity representing the nation. It is modern (didn't exist before the 19th century in any meaningful form, in some areas it only developed in the 20th century, and in many parts of the Third World it still doesn't exist), subjective (sociopsychological and ideological and not set in stone by some sort of concrete objective factor) and fluid (it can develop into something different or cease to exist altogether).

To build a national identity, one has to convince people to start adhering to it, it's not something that's already part of them or simply has to be "awakened".

Nation-builders can decide to build national identity on a variety of different things. They can explore folk traditions and pick some of them to include into the national narratives, they can merge different ones into one narrative, they can invent traditions, they can destroy existing traditions and cultures, they can choose to build the identity on civic values, or a combination of all of these. In every case, they mythologize what they are basing the national narrative on. They tell stories that are usually at least a bit unrealistic, if not completely.

The more radical the nationalism, the more they rely on mythology.

Whether we're talking abour French Nationalism, the nationalism of the various people of Austria-Hungary, of American nationalism, or any other national identity in the world, what we're talking about is the intentional and arbitrary construction of an identity, a process first started by a circle of intellectuals and then gradually, systematically and deliberately spread among other spheres of the populace. The lower the classes of a society, the later that national identity-building reaches them.

As far as basing national identity on ideas of ethnic or racial "purity", it's laughable. All one has to do is look throughout the centuries of history to see how much goddamned intermixing there has been between various peoples.

[Andropov]

Concepts of group identity changes over time- for example, in the middle ages, Europeans thought of themselves more as Europeans rather than Christians. But they are first and foremost based on genetic and thus biological ties- it is proven that people are inherently more compassionate to people who look like themselves. "Germany", "Russia", etc was not always there, but there were many tribal identities which had similar characteristics in culture, language, and other things, which often united them- for example, Khmelnytsy's alliance with Russia, based on religion and linguistic ties.