In 1939, the legal expert, Ernst Rudolf Huber, declared: ‘Asking people to vote is intended to strengthen the Führer’s position vis-à-vis the outside world and to be a clear demonstration of national unity. However, it is the Führer who continues to incorporate the true will of the nation.’ Hitler was not, therefore, bound by the results of the votes.

[…]

The [German Fascists] kept speaking of ‘true democracy’, ‘improved democracy’ (Goebbels), ‘better’ and ‘simpler democracy’ (Hitler), or of ‘genuine democracy’. During the 1934 plebiscite, the Interior Minister, Wilhelm Frick, asked: ‘Where in the world is there a country that is ruled so democratically as Germany?’ Hitler liked boasting, above all in the presence of foreigners, of the ‘40 million Germans’, who stood ‘united behind him’; he was not prepared ‘to take any action without having reassured himself of the people’s trust’.

In August 1934 he told foreign correspondents: ‘Every year I take the opportunity to submit my authority to the approval of the German people. […] We barbaric Germans are better democrats than other nations.’ The official justification for the ‘Plebiscite Law’ of 14 July 1933, which was designed to facilitate the ‘consultation of the people’, stated that this was simply a procedure based ‘on old Teutonic legal forms’.

(Source.)

https://lemmy.ml/post/25861032

So?

This reminds me of a game over screen from Age of Empires: The Rise of Rome, when the Roman player loses to the Hunnic CPU:

Your ineptitude has brought an end to 1,000 years of glorious history. Rome has fallen. The empire has come to an end. Welcome to the Dark Ages. The Huns are lauding you as one of their greatest generals.

In a shouting match debate with Norman Finkelstein, Rabbi Shmuley said the Winston Churchill defeated the Third Reich, which is funny because Churchill hisself said that the Red Army ‘t[ore] the guts out of the’ Wehrmacht.

If the Herzlians simply wanted to get rid of Hamas, they could have used a wide variety of less destructive methods to achieve that goal. See the psychological warfare of the Malayan Emergency for examples.

Source:








​

Good grief. And antisocialists make fun of the PRC for allegedly banning a Disney character…

Soviet policies lead Transnistrians to resist antisemitism, even during Axis occupation.

Generally anticommunists insist that the German–Soviet Pact of 1939 was vastly more important. The most important event of the twentieth century even, if not the single most important event in the universe’s roughly 13.7 billion years of existence, period.

I am not kidding when I say that I have seen far more equivalences made between communism and German Fascism than I have seen references to the Axis’s atrocities on the Eastern Front.

Fix your spelling.

A user just moved the goalpost to the time when the U.S.S.R. traded some raw materials in exchange for firearms and other machinery (which it later used to help defeat the Axis). One can imagine another counterarguing that this credit deal hardly enabled the Third Reich’s bellicism; that, if anything, it likely only lead to the Axis’s defeat as it allowed the Soviets to prepare for the armed conflict. Ask yourself if that sounds identical to the liberal bourgeoisie’s appeasement.

The Third Reich’s trade with the Kingdom of Romania between January and November 1940 surpassed its trade with the Soviet Union. I would be surprised if the Soviets did indeed deliver ‘about 75%’ of the Third Reich’s imports: only 34% of the Third Reich’s oil came from the Soviet Union; it looks like the Kingdom of Romania was a much more important source of Fascism’s black gold.

The non-aggression pact that was signed well after Nazi germany had signed pacts with Britain and France?

While not directly related to the pacts, the British Empire exported significant quantities of scrap to the Third Reich. In fact, the British Empire served as the Third Reich’s primary source of imported raw materials in the 1930s. I cannot say much about pre-1940 France’s economic relations with the Third Reich, but you sparked my curiosity on that subject.

fuck anyone who diminishes the sacrifices of the Soviet Union against the Nazi tide, it’s barely notch above outright holocaust denial.

Added to this, 75.3% of Europe’s Jewish refugees found refuge in the Soviet Union during World War II, Lithuanian Jews welcomed the Red Army in 1940, which had the highest number of Jews of all the Allied armies, and (my favourite) Soviet policies lead Transnistrians to resist antisemitism, even during Axis occupation.

Oh come on. You already know what they are going to say to all of this.

Hint: it is a pentasyllable.

For anybody interested: Muhammad Shehada’s commentary on the Gazan protestors.

Pronounced ‘dips-hit’, I presume?

I posted a Russian neo-nazi flag and medal on that post in an attempt to poke the bear. It would have been awesome to get a half-ass attempt to explain it away with a good-nazi vs. bad-nazi schtick.)

That is the flag of the Russian National Union, a neofascist party that has been defunct for twenty-six years.

My guess is that their thinking is based on the sunk cost fallacy. The Western ruling class has been wasting everybody’s tax dollars on this conflict for several years now and nobody wants to see all of that dosh go to waste by letting Kiev and Moscow sign a peace treaty that inhibits NATO expansion.

What I find upsetting is how so many people can dismiss the antisemites in the Ukrainian military and other institutions with half-baked excuses like ‘it’s okay because the neo-Nazis are all gone now’ (which they aren’t), ‘it’s okay because they have a Jewish president’ (who isn’t fixing the problem), and ‘it’s okay because Russia’s got neo-Nazis too’ (which is irrelevant; they aren’t the ones benefitting from our tax dollars). I know that it doesn’t bother neoclassical liberals to keep beating their war drums, but that they can gloss over Ukrainian antisemitism as a nonissue and an open and shut case… just astonishes me.

A structure of society, which has so evolved, should not be changed or tampered with. For a stratified society is the inevitable result of the laws of nature, the creation of natural forces, and not the product of human determination. For that reason, the structure of society should remain unchanged.

[With] this perception of society came the frightening observation that the inferior reproduced faster than the average while the superior reproduced slower than the average. These two tendencies together must worsen the quality of the genetic substance of the entire race progressively with each generation. The result must bring a degeneration (Entartung) of the race as a whole.⁵² This leads to a “debasement” (Verpöbelung) of the race and a fall of culture”.⁵³

The faster than average rate of reproduction of the inferior was a serious menace for Lenz 1932 and the following racial hygienists such as Ritter, Vogel and Finger in the Third Reich 1937.

(Source.)