5 ms·

"Nazi also complained that Jews are making themselves victims while they supposedly are not." Sure, they can say that, but they would be lying. How were Jews

"Nazi also complained that Jews are making themselves victims while they supposedly are not." Sure, they can say that, but they would be lying. How were Jews not victims when millions of them were being murdered by Nazis? I don't remember Nazis being locked up in ghettoes, concentration camps, or death camps by Jews in WW2. The Nazis were clearly the aggressors, and their attempts to paint themselves as the victims were transparent lies. It's truly sad that this still needs to be pointed out to some people. "The primary identification [of the Nazis] was not victim, it was strongman." It was both. They wanted to have it both ways, so they can pretend to be defending themselves and Germany when they attacked. And they wanted all of Germany to run to them for protection against the Jewish and Communist boogeyman. Tragically, their strategy worked. And it was they, not the Jews, who were doing the attacking. "We can play the nazi game both ways." To you it may seem like a game, but the sorts of lies you're repeating have resulted in the deaths of millions of people, and may do so again. This is no game.

watwut 6y ago
What actually happened after complaining that Jews make themselves victims does not make my statement false. Nazi did in fact complained about that and did felt Jews are making themselves victims. Also the genocide mostly happened by the second half of the WWII, the rhetoric conflicts were mostly before war. > The Nazis were clearly the aggressors, and their attempts to paint themselves as the victims were transparent lies. Plenty of them actually did believed what they said. They did lied a lot, but they also did believed in a lot of they said. > To you it may seem like a game, but the sorts of lies you're repeating have resulted in the deaths of millions of people, and may do so again. This is no game. Not a single word that I wrote was a lie. I did reacted to parent who framed Nazi as primary making themselves into victims. I don't think that framing was the primary appeal. The parent was trying to use Nazi analogy to discount contemporary people/movements parent dislike, contemporary people who are not Nazi. > Much of this is paralleled in contemporary politics, and the powerful continue to create myths that they are the victims of the powerless, while in fact themselves committing violence against the latter. The stab in the back myth was not invented by Nazi either, although they believed it and were motivated by it. The stab in the back myth existed before Nazi, it came to existence right by end of WWI. It was widespread. Also, nazi were not the first anti semitic group in Germany. > they could feel more justified in using violence against their enemies, and so they could acquire more power to "protect" themselves Answering this just for fun. Nazi did not thought like that, this is projecting our values on the past. Nazi believed, strongly believed that "might is right" and the "survival of the fittest". They did believed that victory power has right to do as it pleases. They also believed that violence is manly man thing. They had pretty clear ideas on masculinity. They did felt justified to use violence solely on these grounds - not just against Jews but against whole range of groups. > so they can pretend to be defending themselves and Germany when they attacked Nazi primary argument for war in East was expansion - they claimed to need a living space. That was the justification toward Germans. The Germany was not overpopulated, but nazi did believed it is and that it needs more space. The expand the imperium policy was not invented by nazi either, but was part of German politics long before.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  To the East, a primary source argument was protection of The West against Communism. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24078304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24078304
  - watwut 6y ago
    The communist threat was factor. But living space, alias Lebensraum was the policy and reason for expansion according to historians such as Richard Evans. The comunist threat would not require the sort of policies they had in conquered teritories. They did actually had settlers and actually moved population. It is easy to Google too.
    - 082349872349872 6y ago
      That wasn't to say they didn't do Lebensraum[1], that was to say the way they justified[2] their actions to themselves can be heard, in certain circles, even today. ((Primary source) argument), not (primary (source argument)), sorry. See also https://remember.org/witness/babiyar https://remember.org/witness/babiyar [1] For comparison, Custer's initial move at Greasy Grass was to threaten women and children. Some of the men in his command were in the US because they had emigrated from the reactionary aftermath of the 1848 revolutions. God is an iron. [2] is man a rational animal, or a rationalising animal? One of the giveaways of totalitarian logic is that their enemies are simultaneously both inferior and an existential threat to their superiors. (Agreed, the small-c communist threat would not have required Nazi policies. The large-C Communist threat was something I think Goebbels might have claimed existed so long as a single spark of Communism existed to re-ignite that totalitarian untermensch-driven "revolution.") (Another giveaway is lack of humour: I don't know of any famous totalitarian comedy, especially any that have used self-deprecating humour, but I'd love to be proven wrong on this point. Some regimes even banned humour: Two judges meet on the way to their chambers. One is chuckling and wiping tears from his eyes. The other asks, "what just happened?" "Oy, I just heard the most hilarious Stalin joke ever. But I'm afraid I simply can't tell it to you: I just sent the last person who repeated it to Magadan.")

watwut 6y ago

What actually happened after complaining that Jews make themselves victims does not make my statement false. Nazi did in fact complained about that and did felt Jews are making themselves victims. Also the genocide mostly happened by the second half of the WWII, the rhetoric conflicts were mostly before war. > The Nazis were clearly the aggressors, and their attempts to paint themselves as the victims were transparent lies. Plenty of them actually did believed what they said. They did lied a lot, but they also did believed in a lot of they said. > To you it may seem like a game, but the sorts of lies you're repeating have resulted in the deaths of millions of people, and may do so again. This is no game. Not a single word that I wrote was a lie. I did reacted to parent who framed Nazi as primary making themselves into victims. I don't think that framing was the primary appeal. The parent was trying to use Nazi analogy to discount contemporary people/movements parent dislike, contemporary people who are not Nazi. > Much of this is paralleled in contemporary politics, and the powerful continue to create myths that they are the victims of the powerless, while in fact themselves committing violence against the latter. The stab in the back myth was not invented by Nazi either, although they believed it and were motivated by it. The stab in the back myth existed before Nazi, it came to existence right by end of WWI. It was widespread. Also, nazi were not the first anti semitic group in Germany. > they could feel more justified in using violence against their enemies, and so they could acquire more power to "protect" themselves Answering this just for fun. Nazi did not thought like that, this is projecting our values on the past. Nazi believed, strongly believed that "might is right" and the "survival of the fittest". They did believed that victory power has right to do as it pleases. They also believed that violence is manly man thing. They had pretty clear ideas on masculinity. They did felt justified to use violence solely on these grounds - not just against Jews but against whole range of groups. > so they can pretend to be defending themselves and Germany when they attacked Nazi primary argument for war in East was expansion - they claimed to need a living space. That was the justification toward Germans. The Germany was not overpopulated, but nazi did believed it is and that it needs more space. The expand the imperium policy was not invented by nazi either, but was part of German politics long before.

082349872349872 6y ago
To the East, a primary source argument was protection of The West against Communism. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24078304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24078304
- watwut 6y ago
  The communist threat was factor. But living space, alias Lebensraum was the policy and reason for expansion according to historians such as Richard Evans. The comunist threat would not require the sort of policies they had in conquered teritories. They did actually had settlers and actually moved population. It is easy to Google too.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    That wasn't to say they didn't do Lebensraum[1], that was to say the way they justified[2] their actions to themselves can be heard, in certain circles, even today. ((Primary source) argument), not (primary (source argument)), sorry. See also https://remember.org/witness/babiyar https://remember.org/witness/babiyar [1] For comparison, Custer's initial move at Greasy Grass was to threaten women and children. Some of the men in his command were in the US because they had emigrated from the reactionary aftermath of the 1848 revolutions. God is an iron. [2] is man a rational animal, or a rationalising animal? One of the giveaways of totalitarian logic is that their enemies are simultaneously both inferior and an existential threat to their superiors. (Agreed, the small-c communist threat would not have required Nazi policies. The large-C Communist threat was something I think Goebbels might have claimed existed so long as a single spark of Communism existed to re-ignite that totalitarian untermensch-driven "revolution.") (Another giveaway is lack of humour: I don't know of any famous totalitarian comedy, especially any that have used self-deprecating humour, but I'd love to be proven wrong on this point. Some regimes even banned humour: Two judges meet on the way to their chambers. One is chuckling and wiping tears from his eyes. The other asks, "what just happened?" "Oy, I just heard the most hilarious Stalin joke ever. But I'm afraid I simply can't tell it to you: I just sent the last person who repeated it to Magadan.")