nazi symbols controversy

mike65

simu wrote:

I'm amazed no one seemed to be shocked that posh English people would think it fun to organise a party with "colonists and natives" as its theme in this day and age. This seems far worse than Harry's silly gaffe to me.

I imagine they had already gone though the rest of the list - Tarts and Vicars, Coppers and Robbers etc!

simu wrote:

I read an interesting article somewhere that suggested that many English people who would rather not think about what their country did in its colonies tend to focus on WW2 as this is an example where the English were the good guys up against the Nazi baddies. I don't know many English people so I don't know if this is in any way true - what do people here who have more experience of the English think?

Speaking as a transplanted Englander who proberly knows more about the Irish mind than his own countrymen at this stage I don't see anything suprising here I imagine the Belgians speak more proudly of surviving German occupation than they do of ruling the Congo for example.

Mike.

simu

mike65 wrote:

Speaking as a transplanted Englander who proberly knows more about the Irish mind than his own countrymen at this stage I don't see anything suprising here I imagine the Belgians speak more proudly of surviving German occupation than they do of ruling the Congo for example.

Mike.

I suppose. Handy for the Irish we were always victims of history.

pickarooney

simu wrote:

I suppose. Handy for the Irish we were always victims of history.

Tell that to the Aborigines.

mike65

Anyone fancy a game of "Historical Bottom Trumps"?

Mike.

elvenscout742

growler wrote:

I wonder do the natives of Australia, Nigeria, India, Burma, Afghanistan et al. ( never mind those countries where there may currently be conflict with british troops) keep a special place place in their hearts to revile the symbols of the Empire ? The Star Spangled banner seems to be gaining popularity as a symbol of evil in the Muslim world in a rather short space of time. The Union Jack has been the flag of the conqueror since the mid 1500's.

I find it ironic that you mention India. Here's a question: does anyone know what the Swastika really is?

sceptre

elvenscout742 wrote:

I find it ironic that you mention India. Here's a question: does anyone know what the Swastika really is?

He does if he read the posts earlier in this thread which you obviously didn't Ditto with anyone else who took the few seconds required. In fact I'd go so far as to say that /everyone/ who's read this thread from start to finish knows almost the entire history of the swastika.

Redleslie2

Teneka wrote:

Stalin murdered 12 million roughly,.

Where's your evidence?

I won't be about for a bit so consider the quote below to my follow up post to whatever you respond with.

There were plans to move them out from the regions, use them as labour etc. Extermination process is highly exaggerated by the media. Look at the figures they shoot out. Varies the whole time. Currently stands at 12 million people? You know how difficult it is to dipose of that many corpses? Ever question it or just accept it and leave it at that?

Redleslie2

Toytown nazis, you disappoint me.

billy the squid

Stalin murdered 12 million roughly,.

but this thread is about naziism not communism so this comment is irrelavent.

oh and whether stalin ordered the deaths of 12 12000000 or 120000000 people, it doesnt change the fact that 6,000,000 or so jews were butchered by the nazi regeme. because they were jews

arcadegame2004

Stalin murdered 12 million roughly,.

20 to 40 million actually. This has been well documented. It is taught in our history books. 5 million were Kulaks (big landowners) who Stalin stated should be eliminated "as a class". One of the well-known reasons for the initial success of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union was the slaughter of at least 40% of the officers in the Soviet Army. He deported the Chechens and hundreds of thousands died on their way to Siberia. The rest is accounted for by other deportations e.g. Tatars, Ingush etc. as well as the so-called "traitors" Stalin told Beria (KGB/NKVD head) to round up in quotas of supposed "traitors".

I think bringing Stalin into the discussion is kind of relevant, in that it can be argued there is an inconsistency in banning the swastika if we do not also ban posters of Stalin, or the Red Flag (the flag of nearly all the Communist tyrannies including China, Vietnam, North Korea, which have slaughtered millions of innocent people both before and after 1945). I despise the swastika for the symbol of pure evil it is, but I recently heard that Hindus have used the swastika as a religious symbol and that it had much more positive connotations prior to Nazism. In that context I am not sure banning it outright is such a good idea, except maybe banning it for Far Right neo-nazi usage.

sceptre

arcadegame2004 wrote:

but I recently heard that Hindus have used the swastika as a religious symbol and that it had much more positive connotations prior to Nazism.

There's a nice big bit about it further up the topic.

<aside like some Shakespearean character>
Why does no-one ever appear to read the blimmin thread rather than just replying to the last thing they see
</aside>

40 million's a little on the top as an estimate. I've seen estimates of 50 but no-one takes those seriously. And no-one can make up their minds as to how many. Most estimates put the figure between 7 and 20 million, even allowing for the four year famine in the early thirties. Either way you're talking millions and with most estimates a figure in excess of estimates of the number of Jewish people killed in German death and labour camps so how many millions is relatively immaterial even if one assumes the discussion of Stalin is relevant.

growler

elvenscout742 wrote:

I find it ironic that you mention India. Here's a question: does anyone know what the Swastika really is?

yes. :rolleyes:

<aside like some Shakespearean character>
Why does no-one ever appear to read the blimmin thread rather than just replying to the last thing they see
</aside>

seconded

passive

<aside like some Shakespearean character>

I believe the preffered term is "soliliquay"

pickarooney

passive wrote:

I believe the preffered term is "soliliquay"

You believe wrong, my child.

Redleslie2

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I think bringing Stalin into the discussion is kind of relevant, in that it can be argued there is an inconsistency in banning the swastika if we do not also ban posters of Stalin, or the Red Flag (the flag of nearly all the Communist tyrannies including China, Vietnam, North Korea, which have slaughtered millions of innocent people both before and after 1945).

You left out New Labour.

I despise the swastika for the symbol of pure evil it is,

Why is it evil if the nazis killed lots of queers, tards, foreigners and red flag waving communists and social democrats and prevented Germany from becoming a tyrannical ethnically diverse bender friendly state where, for example, the economically useless and unproductive could claim disability benefit instead of working like proper people?

Redleslie2

There's a film out about the Edelweiss Pirates, the German teen anti-nazi movement. How would a ban on nazi symbols effect production of stuff like this? What are people supposed to do, replace swastikas with ":mad:"?

Redleslie2

Does HRH Princess Michael of Kent (Marie-Christine Anne Agnes Hedwig Ida Windsor née von Reibnitz) post here? This nazi's daughter has waded into the row (BBC story) with the same arguments and politically incorrect understanding of history as some here.

The Bohemia-born royal also said she felt sorry for Prince Harry, who was criticised for dressing up as a Nazi.

She told the paper: "If Harry had worn a hammer and sickle, nobody would have got excited, even though the hammer and sickle stands for Stalin, gulag, pogrom and devastation."

No gulags or pogroms before the commies got rid of their loony royal leeches in controversial fashion of course. :rolleyes:

pickarooney

Redleslie2 wrote:

This nazi's daughter

That's kind of uncalled for, even if it's true.

Redleslie2

pickarooney wrote:

That's kind of uncalled for, even if it's true.

The fruit doesn't fall too far from the tree. Aristos/nazis and their blood purity bollocks.

"The English take the breeding of their horses and dogs more seriously than they do their children," she told Welt am Sonntag. "God forbid that the wrong drop of blood should get into their labrador. But their children marry everywhere."