OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 09:06:27 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Hitler's hate towards the Jews  (Read 9451 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #90 on: April 10, 2013, 04:18:13 AM »

I'm sometimes shocked and appalled at how anti-semitism still runs rampant in the Orthodox Church (and Roman Catholic Church, and just Europe in general) under the guise of "anti-Israel." One can be against Israel's policies without being against the Jews, downgrading the Holocaust, or demonizing an entire people group.

For one, Communism is and always will be a Christian heresy. It is not a Jewish construct by any stretch. Though Karl Marx was ethnically Jewish, he was an atheist as well as a strict materialist. He took the Christian social Gospel and removed God from the equation and instead instituted the collective, which is why it is a Christian heresy. The reason Communism is treated with these so-called "kid gloves" isn't because it's a "Jewish construct," but because most academics actually believe it's a good idea. I've had friends go so far as to say that a violent revolution is needed, along with the killing of political dissinters. That has nothing to do with Communism being Jewish, but everything to do with it being materialistic. Even neo-Marxism and post-Marxism have become softer on religious views, seeing religion not necessarily as an opiate, but something that can be used to transform the world into a collective.

As for Germans not knowing what was going on, the reality is they did. The Americans knew they were committing genocide against the Native Americans, but justified it under "Manifest Destiny." The Spaniards knew they were enslaving the Native populations in the New World, but justified it as prosperity. The English knew they were killing and murdering Africans, but they justified it as necessary. The Turks knew they were murdering Armenians, but the people justified it as in the nation's best interests. Likewise, the Germans knew that Jews were being used as slaves and even being killed, but they justified it as a cleansing. With some 42,500 Nazi camps throughout Europe, all meant for undesirables, there's no way the average German could plead ignorance to what the Nazis were doing.

Third, having German blood does not justify a defense of Germany. You have German blood, so what? Your genetic ancestry is quite irrelevant to the truth of the matter. If we all traced our genetic ancestry we would find that we descend from murderers, rapists, and genocidal maniacs. That is simply how the human race works. Our job isn't to defend our history and put a rose on it, but to correct the past mistakes and create a better future.

We live in a fallen world. Buying into nationalism or racism doesn't fix our problems. Trying to justify an evil act - such as the Holocaust - doesn't make things better. Yes, more focus is placed on Jews lost in the Holocaust, but that is because they made up nearly 50% of the victims. Regardless, all lives lost in this tragic event should not be downplayed or seen as a cause of their own demise. That is not the Christian approach to this matter. Rather, the Christian approach is to realize that we are all fallen away from God, that we are all murderers in our own way, and that we should seek to correct this error through Grace. Anything short will result in failure.
+ 1 (and that's from someone with more than a little German blood and at least 2 former NSDAP members in my immediate family). Thank goodness some people here have enough sense to oppose the nonsense I see being spouted from certain quarters. There is no justification for attempting to sweep the Nazi atrocities under the carpet, no matter whether our relatives were members of the party or victims of it (or both, as in my case).

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #91 on: April 10, 2013, 05:47:58 AM »

+ 1 (and that's from someone with more than a little German blood and at least 2 former NSDAP members in my immediate family). Thank goodness some people here have enough sense to oppose the nonsense I see being spouted from certain quarters. There is no justification for attempting to sweep the Nazi atrocities under the carpet, no matter whether our relatives were members of the party or victims of it (or both, as in my case).

James



+1 more
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #92 on: April 10, 2013, 06:11:35 AM »

The US is a democracy.

I wouldn't say that. They laso wouldn't say that: http://thisnation.com/question/011.html
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #93 on: April 10, 2013, 06:30:28 AM »

The US is a democracy.

I wouldn't say that. They laso wouldn't say that: http://thisnation.com/question/011.html

Firstly, your site confuses the issues of republics and democracies. A country can be both. Your site (had you read it) tentatively agrees that the US is a democracy (with some quibbles).
It says...
By popular usage, however, the word "democracy"  come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy.
http://thisnation.com/question/011.html

Towards the end it reaffirms this "To the extent that the United States of America has moved away from its republican roots and become more "democratic,"

Thus not only is it a confused site, it disagrees with you. Thank you for citing it, though*

Democracy comes from the Greek 'people power' (dêmos kratos). There are variations of democracies. I live in one, yet the head of state is not democratically chosen; the Queen. Australia is thus NOT a republic, but a democracy. The United States IS a republic, but also a democracy.

Athens, the birthplace of democracy didn't have votes for women, but was still a democracy.

We have two houses of parliament, New Zealand (also a democracy) only has one. We are a federation (comprising 6 states), New Zealand is not a federation. Both countries are democracies.

There's much more variation than your website allows for.

It's generally accepted in our systems that we hand over powers to representatives and they run the government; but they are checked by the fact that they can be voted out; thus the people power

So aside from a site that in effect disagrees with you, this excursion still does not take away from the fact that even democracies make mistakes. And, by your logic makes them just as bad as dictatorships.

In effect if you assault someone, or use violence to defend yourself from assault, both instances you would be equally guilty - by your 'logic'.




*- and no doubt the US has moved away from the founding fathers - you don't have slavery, they did. You have votes for women, they didn't. You have more direct elections (although an 'electoral college' still exists). Property rights are not used to weigh up if you can vote. You can vote aged 18.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 06:34:21 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,572



« Reply #94 on: April 10, 2013, 10:15:27 AM »

What Germany did, however, was take a materialistic view of the world, namely that some races are superior to others, and attempted to eradicate the inferior races. It didn't try to build an empire where there were subjects, rather it tried to impose the German way of life on everyone by allowing the "superior race" to propagate while exterminating the inferior races.

This is true.  The WWI Germans in Africa were colonial in the same manner as the British, although not as bad.  The British were all about getting what they could out of the place and then retreating back to England.  The Germans were trying to get out of Europe and most had no intention of going back.  The WWII Nazis, on the other hand, were into expanding Germany and ethnically cleansing the land as they moved in.  There was no attempt to coexist.  Anyone that escaped initial extermination would eventually get their turn.  And that included the Japanese.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,759


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #95 on: April 10, 2013, 02:44:58 PM »

...And that included the Japanese.

Just out of curiousity, would Germany have even been capable of taking on Japan, assuming that they had beat Europe? I don't think they had the Navy to match Japan's Navy, which, was probably the greatest at the time. I imagine they'd coexist in an uneasy relationship if the Axis won.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Virtual Paradise
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 225



« Reply #96 on: April 10, 2013, 03:20:46 PM »

"What Germany did, however, was take a materialistic view of the world, namely that some races are superior to others, and attempted to eradicate the inferior races. It didn't try to build an empire where there were subjects, rather it tried to impose the German way of life on everyone by allowing the "superior race" to propagate while exterminating the inferior races. "

People still being stuck on that? Hitler wasn't even a blond hair blue eyed german. Perhaps there is more than that.
Logged
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,217


« Reply #97 on: April 10, 2013, 05:03:07 PM »

Quote
Germany started the war. Britain was fighting against Germany's aggression.

I call BS on this, the Anglo's were every bit responsible for getting the whole thing started, as a matter of fact, Briatin and France declared war on Germany first sticking their noses in a border dispute they had no business getting involved with even though they already had a big chunk of the globe already with their foot on the necks of millions of Africans and Asiatics.

WWII really came down to the Commonwealth's maintaining their global hegemony against the German upstarts who were becoming a major military and economic force that they felt threatened by. I have no delusions that those snooty, protty, Englishmun had any more intentions than securing their financial and geographical stronghold around the world at the expense of exploiting millions of "untermench".

These British descendant countries crack me up, accussing the Germans or anyone else of being "aggressive" or somehow feeling "superior" to the other races or ethnics, tell me, was there anyone else more arrogant and condescending around the planet than the British?

All you Anglophiles really need to look deeper into the real causes of both world wars in Europe.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 05:04:46 PM by Charles Martel » Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #98 on: April 10, 2013, 05:07:18 PM »

Briatin and France declared war on Germany first sticking their noses in a border dispute they had no business getting involved

They were obliged by treaties with Poland.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,217


« Reply #99 on: April 10, 2013, 05:21:03 PM »

Quote
Germany wanted an empire to enslave and work to death slavs, and to exterminate Jews.

Did Germany ever have "slaves"? Did Britain? Did the Untied States?

Yea, let's talk slaves here, let's talk about how many other peoples the U.S. and Britain exterminated to build their empires.

The Germans considered their own people there biggest and best asset while the U.S. still had basically a caste system and Jim Crowe Laws around the time of the war while the British were practicing their own extermination techniques in Ireland and India.

How do you even know what the German agenda was prior to WWII? From what I've read over the years, the Brits and Frogs were doing their damnest to keep the Reich mired in a economic depression and keep Germany from ever recovering from the Great War with all of the ridiculous provisions of that ludicrous treaty at Versailles.

At any rate, the Anglos had their own version of "enslavement".
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,217


« Reply #100 on: April 10, 2013, 05:22:54 PM »

Briatin and France declared war on Germany first sticking their noses in a border dispute they had no business getting involved

They were obliged by treaties with Poland.
In which they had no business. Hitler knew this.

They egged on the Polish and dared the Riech to defy them.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,759


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #101 on: April 10, 2013, 05:28:49 PM »


You mean like the British Empire which wanted to conquer the entire world?
Tu quoque is a logical fallacy

But it's valid to my point; I'm not defending the badness of Nazi Germany. They are 100% guilty for that. But I'm trying to remove the unnecessary guilt that is placed upon them by people--especially the UK--who were doing the exact same thing. If we are going to demonize Germany this much, then we should do the same to the British Empire for their imperialism and atrocities against mankind.

Quote
Because Britain didn't start WWI?

They still contributed to it. No one person or nation "started" World War I; nationalism started the war--several European nations allowing tension to build up for too long started the war.

Quote
There's your problem there is comparing things that are somewhat similar and thinking they are the same.

There is no relevant difference. Nazism persecuted, imprisoned and/or executed people for opposing the state. The British Empire persecuted, imprisoned and/or executed Indian people for protesting the Crown or threatening their economy by producing better cotton. I don't see a relevant difference. Likewise, the USSR was the very worst, because in many cases, they imprisoned, persecuted and/or executed people for no good reason other than the Bolsheviks' paranoia and Stalin's ruthlessness. At least the British and Germans were doing it for a reason.

Quote
Britain bombed Germany in WWII and Germany bombed Britain in WWII.

You mean after Britain stripped Germany's pockets dry, allowed them to become impoverished and allowed many of their civilians to starve to death in order to fund Britain's massive empire?

Quote
Germany started the war. Britain was fighting against Germany's aggression.

I say Britain started the war for putting Germany in such a rough spot that violence was their only option. Besides, initially, Germany was only invading countries that had originally belonged to them. And the British Empire was the most aggressive force on the face of the Earth at the time.

Quote
Britain had an empire. Motive was most often economical, and certainly they wished to spread Christainity. Also, certainly they often failed not to be cruel.

Quote
Germany wanted an empire to enslave and work to death slavs, and to exterminate Jews.

Hitler wanted an empire to enslave and work to death the Slavs and exterminate Jews  Wink Many Germans just wanted to rise above the shackles that Britain and France put on them after the Great War.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #102 on: April 10, 2013, 05:33:30 PM »

So we're going with this [the Polish Menace theory] now:



Edit: Computer skills fail.  Nevermind.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 05:37:28 PM by Cognomen » Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,759


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #103 on: April 10, 2013, 05:34:59 PM »

Quote
Germany wanted an empire to enslave and work to death slavs, and to exterminate Jews.

Did Germany ever have "slaves"?

Nope Smiley

Quote
Did Britain?

Yup, and then after it was abolished, they had forced labour in their colonies which was almost equal to slavery. Also fair to mention that Russia had serfdom until the Bolsheviks--where it was then replaced by forced labour at the gulags. United States of America had African slaves as well as overworked Mexican labourers on their farms.

The Germans though? I honestly can't think of anything similar...
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,886



« Reply #104 on: April 10, 2013, 06:20:58 PM »

Quote
Germany wanted an empire to enslave and work to death slavs, and to exterminate Jews.

Did Germany ever have "slaves"?

Nope Smiley

Quote
Did Britain?

Yup, and then after it was abolished, they had forced labour in their colonies which was almost equal to slavery. Also fair to mention that Russia had serfdom until the Bolsheviks--where it was then replaced by forced labour at the gulags. United States of America had African slaves as well as overworked Mexican labourers on their farms.

The Germans though? I honestly can't think of anything similar...

James--Couple of points.

Russia abolished serfdom in 1861 by Tsar Alexander II, who was called The Liberator for that reason.

All farm labor was back-breaking hard for all concerned, not just the farm hands. It is true that a few rich farmers did not work so hard, but most farmers did, with or without hired hands. If they did not have the latter, the family members helped.

Regarding slavery, all societies had them at one time or another. Classic slavery is still going on the East Africa (mainly Sudan) and the Arabian Peninsula. White slavery (prostitution) is endemic today.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 06:21:31 PM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,572



« Reply #105 on: April 10, 2013, 06:50:24 PM »


...And that included the Japanese.

Just out of curiousity, would Germany have even been capable of taking on Japan, assuming that they had beat Europe? I don't think they had the Navy to match Japan's Navy, which, was probably the greatest at the time. I imagine they'd coexist in an uneasy relationship if the Axis won.

No.  You have no idea of where the Germans were when it came to technology.  Both the US and the USSR were using German scientists and German technology well after the war.  IF the Germans had won the war, we would have to assume that they developed nuclear weapons before we did.  The war with Japan would have ended the same way, just with a different victor.  On the other hand, IF the Germans won the war, we could pretty well assume that they got rid of Hitler, so who knows what would have happened.  They may have coexisted with a lot of people.  There is a difference between Germans and Nazis, and not ALL Germans were Nazis.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #106 on: April 10, 2013, 08:07:57 PM »

What Germany did, however, was take a materialistic view of the world, namely that some races are superior to others, and attempted to eradicate the inferior races. It didn't try to build an empire where there were subjects, rather it tried to impose the German way of life on everyone by allowing the "superior race" to propagate while exterminating the inferior races.

This is true.  The WWI Germans in Africa were colonial in the same manner as the British, although not as bad.  The British were all about getting what they could out of the place and then retreating back to England.  The Germans were trying to get out of Europe and most had no intention of going back.  The WWII Nazis, on the other hand, were into expanding Germany and ethnically cleansing the land as they moved in.  There was no attempt to coexist.  Anyone that escaped initial extermination would eventually get their turn.  And that included the Japanese.

The Germans in Africa (German South West Africa - now Namibia) were involved in the genoicde of African tribes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide

Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #107 on: April 10, 2013, 08:15:46 PM »

Yup, and then after it was abolished, they had forced labour in their colonies which was almost equal to slavery. Also fair to mention that Russia had serfdom until the Bolsheviks--where it was then replaced by forced labour at the gulags. United States of America had African slaves as well as overworked Mexican labourers on their farms.

The Germans though? I honestly can't think of anything similar...

Reading first, commenting second is a process I would recommend.

Germanic tribes had slavery.

IF you want to compare "Germany" (which only existed as a nation state after 1870) with other nations then that of itself would be a false comparison given its very recent history.

Spain had slaves even when ruled by the German Hapsburg family

Germany certainly had slave labour during WWII.

What do you think of this article:
THE BLACK SLAVES OF PRUSSIA
http://anglicanhistory.org/weston/slaves1918.html
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #108 on: April 10, 2013, 08:17:37 PM »

They still contributed to it.

Therefore if someone attacks your family and you fight back, you're just as guilty, because you're 'contributing to it'.

 Huh

By your logic a person who attempts to murder someone, and that person - the victim who fights back, are equally guilty.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 08:21:59 PM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #109 on: April 10, 2013, 08:21:16 PM »

Quote
Germany started the war. Britain was fighting against Germany's aggression.

I call BS on this, the Anglo's were every bit responsible for getting the whole thing started, as a matter of fact, Briatin and France declared war on Germany first sticking their noses in a border dispute they had no business getting involved with even though they already had a big chunk of the globe already with their foot on the necks of millions of Africans and Asiatics.

Germany declared war by invading Poland - you missed that.

Briatin and (more reluctantly) France declared war on Germany AS THEY HAD PROMISED POLAND should Geramny attack Poland.

And Germany did this. Germany had already shown that they were aggressive. They had been given the German-speaking areas of Czechoslovakia. And they weren't just after this, they took all of Cezechoslovakia.

That is a blatant act of agrression that had NOTHING TO DO with righting wrongs about Versailles because Czechoslovakia was NEVER part of Germany.

Your idea of history is like ignoring the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and only starting off with the US declaration of war on Japan

It's one of the strangest editing of events I've ever seen!
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #110 on: April 10, 2013, 08:36:50 PM »

What caused Hitler's hate towards the Jews than he wondered around to kill 5+ millions of them ?

Well before he ever took power, Hitler had already annouced his hatred of the Jews in Mein Kampf

He blamed them for all the world's ills, through history.

He confused ideas of race, and using simple analogies (just like we breed horses for different purposes, people are in different 'breeds' for different purposes) claimed that Jews existed as a grouping of humankind that existed as a lower form of human than the 'Aryan' type.

« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 08:37:51 PM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,776


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #111 on: April 10, 2013, 09:05:35 PM »

They still contributed to it.

Therefore if someone attacks your family and you fight back, you're just as guilty, because you're 'contributing to it'.

 Huh

By your logic a person who attempts to murder someone, and that person - the victim who fights back, are equally guilty.

This is an issue that I have been thinking about recently. Of course you are not wrong, but there are other views of this problem.

School children are told when they defend themselves that they are guilty too because they should not finish what someone else started.
And that two wrongs do not make a right. But they see that the grown ups are hypocrites about these issues when they see people Killing and fighting on the news every day.

Governments are guilty of the same thing for other lesser events than you mentioned, that have started wars , such as vietnam, Iraq more recently.


Feuds between family or friends go on for generations because each time vengeance is sought for the wronged party.

Since we are here for our faith as Orthodox, we must also use scripture to guide these issues.

Matt 5

39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

Luke 6
Love for Enemies

27“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Of course these things are impossible for mankind most of the time, but we are supposed to try as hard as we can. And when we fail, to acknowledge our sins and repent.

However most men I know want to say how we are right and they were wrong. Not wanting to admit your mistakes means you are doomed to repeat them and worse than that, you are not forgiven.

IMHO
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 09:08:47 PM by Sinful Hypocrite » Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #112 on: April 11, 2013, 12:10:35 AM »

This is an issue that I have been thinking about recently. Of course you are not wrong, but there are other views of this problem.

School children are told when they defend themselves that they are guilty too because they should not finish what someone else started.
And that two wrongs do not make a right. But they see that the grown ups are hypocrites about these issues when they see people Killing and fighting on the news every day.

Governments are guilty of the same thing for other lesser events than you mentioned, that have started wars , such as vietnam, Iraq more recently.


Feuds between family or friends go on for generations because each time vengeance is sought for the wronged party.

Since we are here for our faith as Orthodox, we must also use scripture to guide these issues.

Matt 5

39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

Luke 6
Love for Enemies

27“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Of course these things are impossible for mankind most of the time, but we are supposed to try as hard as we can. And when we fail, to acknowledge our sins and repent.

However most men I know want to say how we are right and they were wrong. Not wanting to admit your mistakes means you are doomed to repeat them and worse than that, you are not forgiven.

IMHO

I am against violence and think it's a sin even in self-defence. HOWEVER I may well defend myself, regardless (as I amy not achieve my ideal). I would be even more inclinded to defend my family.

And, a person killed by a murderer, or a person killed by someone defending themselves still results in a tragic loss of human life.

I have no doubt about killing being wrong.

HOWEVER I am using the 'logic' of several people here to develop their own argument further.

They are, for e.g. equating Britain's defence of itself as being as bad as Germany's attack on Britain.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2013, 12:14:11 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #113 on: April 11, 2013, 01:29:52 AM »

To those that think Germany never had slavery:

"Serfdom replaced slavery in medieval Germany."
http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24160

And serfdom is not far-removed from slavery.

Australia boasts that we never had slavery. Strictly speaking this is true. But we were founded on convict labour (a type of slavery). Also, with force or false promises, Kanakas from New Caledonia were brought to far northern Australia to get the sugar industry going. Their conditions weren't far off slavery either. When Australia became a nation (1901) most of these people were sent back, even though they'd established themselves here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanaka_(Pacific_Island_worker)#Australia

One has to be careful about terminology. It would be very easy for me to boast Australia has had no slavery (whereas Germany has), but it would be misleading because of the facts I've just stated.

To say Germany has had no slavery is even more false.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Velsigne
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 448



« Reply #114 on: April 11, 2013, 03:00:14 AM »

Quote
Germany started the war. Britain was fighting against Germany's aggression.

I call BS on this, the Anglo's were every bit responsible for getting the whole thing started, as a matter of fact, Briatin and France declared war on Germany first sticking their noses in a border dispute they had no business getting involved with even though they already had a big chunk of the globe already with their foot on the necks of millions of Africans and Asiatics.

WWII really came down to the Commonwealth's maintaining their global hegemony against the German upstarts who were becoming a major military and economic force that they felt threatened by. I have no delusions that those snooty, protty, Englishmun had any more intentions than securing their financial and geographical stronghold around the world at the expense of exploiting millions of "untermench".

These British descendant countries crack me up, accussing the Germans or anyone else of being "aggressive" or somehow feeling "superior" to the other races or ethnics, tell me, was there anyone else more arrogant and condescending around the planet than the British?

All you Anglophiles really need to look deeper into the real causes of both world wars in Europe.

I'm not sure why you seem to not want to discuss Germany, specifically the topic of Hitler's policy towards Jews, and instead bring up the failings of England.  Most would fault England in that they pursued a foolhardy plan of appeasement far too long under the auspices of Neville Chamberlain.  Hitler was blatantly re-arming Germany, even participated in the war in Spain with aircraft and tried out new weaponry there, which was a direct contravention of the Versailles Treaty.   There were other actions he took in defiance of the VT, And yet it was allowed to continue on until full war broke out.  England was pretty well strapped after the Great War as well and wasn't in too much of a hurry to rush off to war again. 

They had every reason to be concerned about a Germany led by Hitler, who was a madman, breaking rules left and right, yet they tried to stay the course and appease him until it was too late.

And one could debate whether the VT was unfairly harsh and overly reactionary, but it wasn't just the Brits imposing that. 


Logged
Velsigne
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 448



« Reply #115 on: April 11, 2013, 03:08:01 AM »


To say Germany has had no slavery is even more false.


Part of the Jews, who were able bodied, young enough, or female with no children, were put into slavery and worked to death.  Arbeit Macht Frei.  Some of those companies that used their labor still exist today, and they had links to American business interest.  There were other work camps as well. 

Once they got their program ramped up and were shipping Jews in livestock cars across Europe to the major camps, they learned early on to disposed of women with children first, because once they tried to separate women from their children, the women rioted.  It was more efficient to just shuffle them off together and kill them.

One camp actually had a White Cross flag hanging above the gas chamber. 
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,759


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #116 on: April 11, 2013, 03:13:12 AM »

No offense, but those Jews get waay too much attention. Homosexuals have been targeted since the dawn of man and were victims of the Holocaust as well, Native Americans suffered genocide, enslavement and had nearly their entire continent stolen from them, the native inhabitants of what is now known as Latin America were colonized, enslaved into forced labour and suffered genocide in many cases, millions of Asian people in China and the Philippines were tortured, raped and murdered by the Japanese--who I consider to have been even more barbaric than Germany. Why is it that the Jews get so much special attention and get an entire nation out of it in the end at the expense of another innocent population (the Palestinians) who did nothing to them?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #117 on: April 11, 2013, 03:33:55 AM »

No offense, but those Jews get waay too much attention. Homosexuals have been targeted since the dawn of man and were victims of the Holocaust as well, Native Americans suffered genocide, enslavement and had nearly their entire continent stolen from them, the native inhabitants of what is now known as Latin America were colonized, enslaved into forced labour and suffered genocide in many cases, millions of Asian people in China and the Philippines were tortured, raped and murdered by the Japanese--who I consider to have been even more barbaric than Germany. Why is it that the Jews get so much special attention and get an entire nation out of it in the end at the expense of another innocent population (the Palestinians) who did nothing to them?

well your posts seem to show an attempt of drawing attention from them with a relativist defence of Hitler!
« Last Edit: April 11, 2013, 03:34:47 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Virtual Paradise
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 225



« Reply #118 on: April 11, 2013, 03:37:51 AM »

What caused Hitler's hate towards the Jews than he wondered around to kill 5+ millions of them ?

Well before he ever took power, Hitler had already annouced his hatred of the Jews in Mein Kampf

He blamed them for all the world's ills, through history.

He confused ideas of race, and using simple analogies (just like we breed horses for different purposes, people are in different 'breeds' for different purposes) claimed that Jews existed as a grouping of humankind that existed as a lower form of human than the 'Aryan' type.



He did that earlier than "Mein Kampf" , after the treaty of Versaille, through a written letter in September 16, 1919.

Quote
Dear Herr Gemlich,
The danger posed by Jewry for our people today finds expression in the undeniable aversion of wide sections of our people. The cause of this aversion is not to be found in a clear recognition of the consciously or unconsciously systematic and pernicious effect of the Jews as a totality upon our nation. Rather, it arises mostly from personal contact and from the personal impression which the individual Jew leaves--almost always an unfavorable one. For this reason, antisemitism is too easily characterized as a mere emotional phenomenon. And yet this is incorrect. Antisemitism as a political movement may not and cannot be defined by emotional impulses, but by recognition of the facts. The facts are these: First, Jewry is absolutely a race and not a religious association. Even the Jews never designate themselves as Jewish Germans, Jewish Poles, or Jewish Americans but always as German, Polish, or American Jews. Jews have never yet adopted much more than the language of the foreign nations among whom they live. A German who is forced to make use of the French language in France, Italian in Italy, Chinese in China does not thereby become a Frenchman, Italian, or Chinaman. It's the same with the Jew who lives among us and is forced to make use of the German language. He does not thereby become a German. Neither does the Mosaic faith, so important for the survival of this race, settle the question of whether someone is a Jew or non-Jew. There is scarcely a race whose members belong exclusively to just one definite religion.

Through thousands of years of the closest kind of inbreeding, Jews in general have maintained their race and their peculiarities far more distinctly than many of the peoples among whom they have lived. And thus comes the fact that there lives amongst us a non- German, alien race which neither wishes nor is able to sacrifice its racial character or to deny its feeling, thinking, and striving. Nevertheless, it possesses all the political rights we do. If the ethos of the Jews is revealed in the purely material realm, it is even clearer in their thinking and striving. Their dance around the golden calf is becoming a merciless struggle for all those possessions we prize most highly on earth.

The value of the individual is no longer decided by his character or by the significance of his achievements for the totality but exclusively by the size of his fortune, by his money.

The loftiness of a nation is no longer to be measured by the sum of its moral and spiritual powers, but rather by the wealth of its material possessions.

This thinking and striving after money and power, and the feelings that go along with it, serve the purposes of the Jew who is unscrupulous in the choice of methods and pitiless in their employment. In autocratically ruled states he whines for the favor of "His Majesty" and misuses it like a leech fastened upon the nations. In democracies he vies for the favor of the masses, cringes before the "majesty of the people," and recognizes only the majesty of money.

He destroys the character of princes with byzantine flattery, national pride (the strength of a people), with ridicule and shameless breeding to depravity. His method of battle is that public opinion which is never expressed in the press but which is nonetheless managed and falsified by it. His power is the power of money, which multiplies in his hands effortlessly and endlessly through interest, and which forces peoples under the most dangerous of yokes. Its golden glitter, so attractive in the beginning, conceals the ultimately tragic consequences. Everything men strive after as a higher goal, be it religion, socialism, democracy, is to the Jew only means to an end, the way to satisfy his lust for gold and domination.

In his effects and consequences he is like a racial tuberculosis of the nations.

The deduction from all this is the following: an antisemitism based on purely emotional grounds will find its ultimate expression in the form of the pogrom.[1] An antisemitism based on reason, however, must lead to systematic legal combatting and elimination of the privileges of the Jews, that which distinguishes the Jews from the other aliens who live among us (an Aliens Law). The ultimate objective [of such legislation] must, however, be the irrevocable removal of the Jews in general.

For both these ends a government of national strength, not of national weakness, is necessary.

The Republic in Germany owes its birth not to the uniform national will of our people but the sly exploitation of a series of circumstances which found general expression in a deep, universal dissatisfaction. These circumstances however were independent of the form of the state and are still operative today. Indeed, more so now than before. Thus, a great portion of our people recognizes that a changed state-form cannot in itself change our situation. For that it will take a rebirth of the moral and spiritual powers of the nation.

And this rebirth cannot be initiated by a state leadership of irresponsible majorities, influenced by certain party dogmas, an irresponsible press, or internationalist phrases and slogans. [It requires] instead the ruthless installation of nationally minded leadership personalities with an inner sense of responsibility.

But these facts deny to the Republic the essential inner support of the nation's spiritual forces. And thus today's state leaders are compelled to seek support among those who draw the exclusive benefits of the new formation of German conditions, and who for this reason were the driving force behind the revolution--the Jews. Even though (as various statements of the leading personalities reveal) today's leaders fully realized the danger of Jewry, they (seeking their own advantage) accepted the readily proffered support of the Jews and also returned the favor. And this pay-off consisted not only in every possible favoring of Jewry, but above all in the hindrance of the struggle of the betrayed people against its defrauders, that is in the repression of the antisemitic movement.

Respectfully,
Adolf Hitler


« Last Edit: April 11, 2013, 03:38:21 AM by Virtual Paradise » Logged
Virtual Paradise
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 225



« Reply #119 on: April 11, 2013, 03:39:29 AM »

No offense, but those Jews get waay too much attention. Homosexuals have been targeted since the dawn of man and were victims of the Holocaust as well, Native Americans suffered genocide, enslavement and had nearly their entire continent stolen from them, the native inhabitants of what is now known as Latin America were colonized, enslaved into forced labour and suffered genocide in many cases, millions of Asian people in China and the Philippines were tortured, raped and murdered by the Japanese--who I consider to have been even more barbaric than Germany. Why is it that the Jews get so much special attention and get an entire nation out of it in the end at the expense of another innocent population (the Palestinians) who did nothing to them?

well your posts seem to show an attempt of drawing attention from them with a relativist defence of Hitler!

Isn't limiting the Holocaust to the Jews alone a discrimination?
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #120 on: April 11, 2013, 04:07:05 AM »

Quote
Germany wanted an empire to enslave and work to death slavs, and to exterminate Jews.

Did Germany ever have "slaves"?

Nope Smiley


Are you quite sure about that? You see to my mind being imprisoned in a camp and forced into the dangerous work of making ammunition for no pay is pretty much the definition of slavery, really no different from Roman slavery in the mines, for instance. Not only did my grandfather (German) guard such a place but my grandmother and her sisters (stateless Slavs) were confined to such a place. Are you really willing to stick your neck out and say Germany never had slavery, because I'm pretty confident that I can prove to you that they did as recently as the 1940s.

James
« Last Edit: April 11, 2013, 04:08:53 AM by jmbejdl » Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #121 on: April 11, 2013, 04:58:08 AM »

Quote
Germany wanted an empire to enslave and work to death slavs, and to exterminate Jews.

Did Germany ever have "slaves"?

Nope Smiley


Are you quite sure about that? You see to my mind being imprisoned in a camp and forced into the dangerous work of making ammunition for no pay is pretty much the definition of slavery, really no different from Roman slavery in the mines, for instance. Not only did my grandfather (German) guard such a place but my grandmother and her sisters (stateless Slavs) were confined to such a place. Are you really willing to stick your neck out and say Germany never had slavery, because I'm pretty confident that I can prove to you that they did as recently as the 1940s.

James

If we re-badge them as 'guest workers' then we can pretend they're well-paid workers
« Last Edit: April 11, 2013, 04:58:35 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,217


« Reply #122 on: April 11, 2013, 04:19:09 PM »

Quote
Germany declared war by invading Poland - you missed that.

Again, someone didn't pay attention in history class.......Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around.

"The usual claim is that Germany started WWII by invading Poland. That is war propaganda. It wasn't even called a world war until after the US entered into it which brought in Japan's war with China which gave the war a global scope. So the most we can address with the invasion of Poland is war in Europe.

So was it Germany's invasion of Poland that started the general war in Europe? No. It was Britain and France declaring a state of war existed with Germany which did that. Germany did not declare war on Britain and France. Italy did not get into the war until Britain and France declared a state of war existed with Germany.

One excuse is Britain and France had a mutual defense treaty with Poland which they had to honor.


The first point is Russia also invaded Poland but Britain and France did not declare war on Russia. So the treaty was selectively honored at best.
 The second point is honoring the treaty, like signing the treaty, was completely voluntary. No one forced them to sign it or to honor it and clearly no one could have forced them to do either.

The third point is, although the intention to create such a treaty was announced in the Spring of 1939 it was in only signed eight days before the invasion of Poland. That is skin of the teeth to have it as a cheap propaganda excuse.

The fourth point is, Britain and France based their war on Germany solely upon Germany declining to obey the British ultimatum to leave Poland. The treaty was not identified at the time. It is not reasonable to blame a country for starting a war when, as a sovereign nation, it rationally declined to have its actions dictated by other countries.

But if they had not honored the treaty they would not have been taken seriously again, thought to have no honor, etc. These are all the usual excuses but as we have seen over the centuries these are ways to excite youth to war. When war is not in a country's interest we know they emphasize statesmanship in avoiding war.

In 1939 territorial claims were an accepted justification for war. Both Russia and Germany invaded Poland to reclaim land lost at Versailles as a consequence of WWI. Poland was a small landlocked country before the war. The victors in WWI took it upon themselves to force Russians and Germans to become Poles. In fact after WWII Russia kept the land it retook. What Germany took was given back to Poland. On top of that, to compensate for the land and people kept by Russia, even more Germans and land was given to Poland. The point being if invasion and conquest was a cause for the war it was forgotten after the war. "


http://www.giwersworld.org/wwii/wwii-summ.phtml
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,217


« Reply #123 on: April 11, 2013, 04:34:11 PM »

To those that think Germany never had slavery:

"Serfdom replaced slavery in medieval Germany."
http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24160

And serfdom is not far-removed from slavery.

Australia boasts that we never had slavery. Strictly speaking this is true. But we were founded on convict labour (a type of slavery). Also, with force or false promises, Kanakas from New Caledonia were brought to far northern Australia to get the sugar industry going. Their conditions weren't far off slavery either. When Australia became a nation (1901) most of these people were sent back, even though they'd established themselves here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanaka_(Pacific_Island_worker)#Australia

One has to be careful about terminology. It would be very easy for me to boast Australia has had no slavery (whereas Germany has), but it would be misleading because of the facts I've just stated.

To say Germany has had no slavery is even more false.

Every country in Europe at one time since Medieval times employed in "serfdom"" which meant different things in each distinct nation in which it was practiced. For many of the poor, it was for their very survival and even flourished by it.


You can call serdom whatever you want but at the end of the day, you can't call it slavery. Not like slavery was practiced in the British Empire or the U.S., nobody in Europe's "serfdom's" were snatched out of their indigenous lands, transported and sold off or auctioned to the highest bidder and forced into a life of slave labor under the thumb of their "master" for the rest of their natural lives.

Germany, as long as it has been a nation, has never engaged in this practice.

You're "serfdom" argument is fallacious or weak at best.

Keep trying.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #124 on: April 11, 2013, 04:38:26 PM »

Every country in Europe at one time since Medieval times employed in "serfdom"" which meant different things in each distinct nation in which it was practiced.

Quote
Germany, as long as it has been a nation, has never engaged in this practice.

Logical conclusion: Germany is not in Europe.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,217


« Reply #125 on: April 11, 2013, 04:48:04 PM »

They still contributed to it.

Therefore if someone attacks your family and you fight back, you're just as guilty, because you're 'contributing to it'.

 Huh

By your logic a person who attempts to murder someone, and that person - the victim who fights back, are equally guilty.
Many of the Germans believed they were fighting back against a system that was trying to murder Germany.

Between the Zionist backed Anglos in the West and the commie Bolsheviks in the East, they had a case.

You have no idea what was going on in post WWI Germany and the Weimar regime was one of the most corrupt and inept regimes in Europe. something had to give eventually.If you look back at history, Hitler might've saved all of Western  Europe from the Communist threat.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,217


« Reply #126 on: April 11, 2013, 04:49:28 PM »

Every country in Europe at one time since Medieval times employed in "serfdom"" which meant different things in each distinct nation in which it was practiced.

Quote
Germany, as long as it has been a nation, has never engaged in this practice.

Logical conclusion: Germany is not in Europe.
Logical conclusion: Germany never employed slavery.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Jason.Wike
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,046


« Reply #127 on: April 11, 2013, 04:55:07 PM »

Well, someone is certainly smoking pot.
Logged
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,217


« Reply #128 on: April 11, 2013, 05:02:09 PM »

Quote
Germany started the war. Britain was fighting against Germany's aggression.

I call BS on this, the Anglo's were every bit responsible for getting the whole thing started, as a matter of fact, Briatin and France declared war on Germany first sticking their noses in a border dispute they had no business getting involved with even though they already had a big chunk of the globe already with their foot on the necks of millions of Africans and Asiatics.

WWII really came down to the Commonwealth's maintaining their global hegemony against the German upstarts who were becoming a major military and economic force that they felt threatened by. I have no delusions that those snooty, protty, Englishmun had any more intentions than securing their financial and geographical stronghold around the world at the expense of exploiting millions of "untermench".

These British descendant countries crack me up, accussing the Germans or anyone else of being "aggressive" or somehow feeling "superior" to the other races or ethnics, tell me, was there anyone else more arrogant and condescending around the planet than the British?

All you Anglophiles really need to look deeper into the real causes of both world wars in Europe.

I'm not sure why you seem to not want to discuss Germany, specifically the topic of Hitler's policy towards Jews, and instead bring up the failings of England.  Most would fault England in that they pursued a foolhardy plan of appeasement far too long under the auspices of Neville Chamberlain.  Hitler was blatantly re-arming Germany, even participated in the war in Spain with aircraft and tried out new weaponry there, which was a direct contravention of the Versailles Treaty.   There were other actions he took in defiance of the VT, And yet it was allowed to continue on until full war broke out.  England was pretty well strapped after the Great War as well and wasn't in too much of a hurry to rush off to war again. 

They had every reason to be concerned about a Germany led by Hitler, who was a madman, breaking rules left and right, yet they tried to stay the course and appease him until it was too late.

And one could debate whether the VT was unfairly harsh and overly reactionary, but it wasn't just the Brits imposing that. 



Because I believe if it wasn't for the protty, freemasons in England meddeling in Germany's affairs and competeing with them for economic domination, even starting a war with them, then we wouldn't even be talking about all the horrors that ensued. the only "rules" that the "madman" Hitler broke were the ones thrusted upon Germany by the group in London hellbent on keeping their status quo of world domination and British/Anglo supremacy on the global scene.

Who was Neville Chamberlain even stick his nose in affairs between Poland and Germany to begin with?
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,217


« Reply #129 on: April 11, 2013, 05:03:02 PM »

Well, someone is certainly smoking pot.
Good stuff huh?
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #130 on: April 11, 2013, 05:51:46 PM »



Are Southerners and Yankees separate nationalities?



They once were; USA/CSA...
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #131 on: April 11, 2013, 06:22:28 PM »

From the Jewish Encyclopedia: ""Jews have been prominently identified with the modern Socialist movement from its very inception." "Scientific socialism," or what we call communism, says the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia in its article on socialism, "originated in the combination of Jewish Messianic feeling with German philosophy" 1 Marx, of course, was Jewish. But, just as important, Jews at all levels, from high financiers like the Warburgs, Schiffs and Rothschilds to rugged revolutionaries like Trotsky, Kamenev, Sverdlov and Zinoviev, made the success of communism possible.

Source of this quote. You have 48 hours to provide it.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Jason.Wike
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,046


« Reply #132 on: April 11, 2013, 06:34:43 PM »

Well, someone is certainly smoking pot.
Good stuff huh?

I don't know, I've never had any kind of drugs in my life.
Logged
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,217


« Reply #133 on: April 11, 2013, 07:07:19 PM »

From the Jewish Encyclopedia: ""Jews have been prominently identified with the modern Socialist movement from its very inception." "Scientific socialism," or what we call communism, says the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia in its article on socialism, "originated in the combination of Jewish Messianic feeling with German philosophy" 1 Marx, of course, was Jewish. But, just as important, Jews at all levels, from high financiers like the Warburgs, Schiffs and Rothschilds to rugged revolutionaries like Trotsky, Kamenev, Sverdlov and Zinoviev, made the success of communism possible.

Source of this quote. You have 48 hours to provide it.
Jewish Activists
Created Communism
By Rev. Ted Pike
6-12-7


http://rense.com/general76/commun.htm

Satisfied?
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,217


« Reply #134 on: April 11, 2013, 07:12:39 PM »

What caused Hitler's hate towards the Jews than he wondered around to kill 5+ millions of them ?

Well before he ever took power, Hitler had already annouced his hatred of the Jews in Mein Kampf

He blamed them for all the world's ills, through history.

He confused ideas of race, and using simple analogies (just like we breed horses for different purposes, people are in different 'breeds' for different purposes) claimed that Jews existed as a grouping of humankind that existed as a lower form of human than the 'Aryan' type.



He did that earlier than "Mein Kampf" , after the treaty of Versaille, through a written letter in September 16, 1919.

Quote
Dear Herr Gemlich,
The danger posed by Jewry for our people today finds expression in the undeniable aversion of wide sections of our people. The cause of this aversion is not to be found in a clear recognition of the consciously or unconsciously systematic and pernicious effect of the Jews as a totality upon our nation. Rather, it arises mostly from personal contact and from the personal impression which the individual Jew leaves--almost always an unfavorable one. For this reason, antisemitism is too easily characterized as a mere emotional phenomenon. And yet this is incorrect. Antisemitism as a political movement may not and cannot be defined by emotional impulses, but by recognition of the facts. The facts are these: First, Jewry is absolutely a race and not a religious association. Even the Jews never designate themselves as Jewish Germans, Jewish Poles, or Jewish Americans but always as German, Polish, or American Jews. Jews have never yet adopted much more than the language of the foreign nations among whom they live. A German who is forced to make use of the French language in France, Italian in Italy, Chinese in China does not thereby become a Frenchman, Italian, or Chinaman. It's the same with the Jew who lives among us and is forced to make use of the German language. He does not thereby become a German. Neither does the Mosaic faith, so important for the survival of this race, settle the question of whether someone is a Jew or non-Jew. There is scarcely a race whose members belong exclusively to just one definite religion.

Through thousands of years of the closest kind of inbreeding, Jews in general have maintained their race and their peculiarities far more distinctly than many of the peoples among whom they have lived. And thus comes the fact that there lives amongst us a non- German, alien race which neither wishes nor is able to sacrifice its racial character or to deny its feeling, thinking, and striving. Nevertheless, it possesses all the political rights we do. If the ethos of the Jews is revealed in the purely material realm, it is even clearer in their thinking and striving. Their dance around the golden calf is becoming a merciless struggle for all those possessions we prize most highly on earth.

The value of the individual is no longer decided by his character or by the significance of his achievements for the totality but exclusively by the size of his fortune, by his money.

The loftiness of a nation is no longer to be measured by the sum of its moral and spiritual powers, but rather by the wealth of its material possessions.

This thinking and striving after money and power, and the feelings that go along with it, serve the purposes of the Jew who is unscrupulous in the choice of methods and pitiless in their employment. In autocratically ruled states he whines for the favor of "His Majesty" and misuses it like a leech fastened upon the nations. In democracies he vies for the favor of the masses, cringes before the "majesty of the people," and recognizes only the majesty of money.

He destroys the character of princes with byzantine flattery, national pride (the strength of a people), with ridicule and shameless breeding to depravity. His method of battle is that public opinion which is never expressed in the press but which is nonetheless managed and falsified by it. His power is the power of money, which multiplies in his hands effortlessly and endlessly through interest, and which forces peoples under the most dangerous of yokes. Its golden glitter, so attractive in the beginning, conceals the ultimately tragic consequences. Everything men strive after as a higher goal, be it religion, socialism, democracy, is to the Jew only means to an end, the way to satisfy his lust for gold and domination.

In his effects and consequences he is like a racial tuberculosis of the nations.

The deduction from all this is the following: an antisemitism based on purely emotional grounds will find its ultimate expression in the form of the pogrom.[1] An antisemitism based on reason, however, must lead to systematic legal combatting and elimination of the privileges of the Jews, that which distinguishes the Jews from the other aliens who live among us (an Aliens Law). The ultimate objective [of such legislation] must, however, be the irrevocable removal of the Jews in general.

For both these ends a government of national strength, not of national weakness, is necessary.

The Republic in Germany owes its birth not to the uniform national will of our people but the sly exploitation of a series of circumstances which found general expression in a deep, universal dissatisfaction. These circumstances however were independent of the form of the state and are still operative today. Indeed, more so now than before. Thus, a great portion of our people recognizes that a changed state-form cannot in itself change our situation. For that it will take a rebirth of the moral and spiritual powers of the nation.

And this rebirth cannot be initiated by a state leadership of irresponsible majorities, influenced by certain party dogmas, an irresponsible press, or internationalist phrases and slogans. [It requires] instead the ruthless installation of nationally minded leadership personalities with an inner sense of responsibility.

But these facts deny to the Republic the essential inner support of the nation's spiritual forces. And thus today's state leaders are compelled to seek support among those who draw the exclusive benefits of the new formation of German conditions, and who for this reason were the driving force behind the revolution--the Jews. Even though (as various statements of the leading personalities reveal) today's leaders fully realized the danger of Jewry, they (seeking their own advantage) accepted the readily proffered support of the Jews and also returned the favor. And this pay-off consisted not only in every possible favoring of Jewry, but above all in the hindrance of the struggle of the betrayed people against its defrauders, that is in the repression of the antisemitic movement.

Respectfully,
Adolf Hitler



The above quote was in Mein Kampf? I never read it. If  it did not, do you have a source for where it came from?
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.173 seconds with 72 queries.