Sudan Massacre

[Politesse]

All of that is questionably relevant. I don't see how matrilineal inheritance of an ethnic identity makes one any more or less a "race" than patrilineal inheritance would, and its beside the point anyway. I am asking you, why did the Nazi Party hate and fear Jews? Why Jews, particularly? I know that you know why, and that it has nothing to do with biology.

Aright, we're getting somewhere with this, I can work with this.

Nazis hated jews because... drumroll please... they were a conveniently affluent and identifiable group of people that didn't conform to the social rules that nazis wanted to impose. At least some of that has a religious history, of course. But certainly not all of it. Under christian rule (you know, when large portions of europe were actually governed by the vatican through royalty-as-proxies?) jews were prohibited from many social roles, but they were NOT prohibited from moneylending and trading. Throughout many periods of history, jews were more economically successful within their diaspora countries. Partly due to their involvement in finance, but also do to the highly jewish community focused nature of their religion.

Are you under the impression that I think religious history has no impact on social structures? That would be dumb, and I'm not dumb.

Now then. If you take as given that the historical christianity of germany was a fundamental and unavoidable primary influence of naziism, then you're effectively taking the stance that any other reason that the nazi party provided for their actions were made up justifications, and that their true and real reason was religious dominance.

By that same token, you'd end up having to conclude that the bolshevik revolution was a christian uprising, and that the imposition of a secular state was just window-dressing for a fundamentally christian religious war.

And you'd also have to conclude that every aggressive action taken on the part of any muslim-dominated nation or organization is ALSO inescapably an attempt to impose islam by force on the rest of the world. Therefore, islam as a religion is a threat to all people who aren't islamic.

Except that I'm not stupid, and don't hew to over-simplified, single cause myths to explain history.

What, you mean other than you trying to force christianity to be the cause of WW2 in the European theater, and the underlying reason for nazis?

I did no such thing.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

As noted, Germany was an overwhelmingly Christian nation but from this fact it does not follow that Christians were responsible for Nazis. And as also noted, Nazis oppressed Christians in Germany and brutally suppressed them in Poland. And as further noted, a great many
Christians in all nations vigorously opposed Hitler and Nazis.

It is the consensus of specialist historians that prior to and during Nazi occupation Poland was massively anti-Semitic. This continued after the war with actions such as the Kielce Pogrom of July 4, 1946. There was a mass Jewish exodus from Poland due to such post-war anti-Semitism.

Studying history is great. Written documents are great. But for them to have any actual utility, you need to understand both what happened, and why those things happened

What pood said was not "I disagree with your interpretation of the linked document, and here ate the reasons why". What he said, all he said, was "I don’t really give a fuck about your link." That's history denialism, not an informed alternative interpretation of history.

YOUR insistence that Nazism was an explicitly Christian movement is the historical revisionism, Poli.

You are the historical revisionist. There were centuries of anti-Semitism in Europe, culminating in Nazism.

QUOTE:
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: Hitler was introduced to this forgery in the early 1920s by early Nazi thinkers like Alfred Rosenberg. The book reinforced his existing anti-Jewish beliefs and he referenced it in his autobiography, Mein Kampf, claiming it exposed the "inner truth" of Jewish aims, even though he and other Nazi leaders were aware it was a fabricated text.
The International Jew: This four-volume set of anti-semitic articles was originally published in the early 1920s by American industrialist Henry Ford's newspaper, The Dearborn Independent. The work was translated into German in 1922 and was also cited by high-ranking Nazi officials, such as Baldur von Schirach, as a significant influence. Hitler kept a copy and a portrait of Ford in his Munich office, viewing him as an inspiration.
These and other pre-existing anti-semitic publications provided the groundwork for the virulent, state-sponsored anti-Jewish propaganda that the Nazis would later mass-produce and distribute through various media, including newspapers like Der Stürmer and children's books such as Der Giftpilz (The Poisonous Mushroom).

All this propaganda worked because the German people were already predisposed towards anti-Jewish thinking, by centuries of Christian church backed indoctrination. The concept that Jews were the Christ-killers, the prevailing social attitudes towards Jews amongst European Christians. American Christians had the same attitudes, thus allowing Nazism to grow in USA, and the rejection of Jewish refugees:

QUOTE:
The most famous instance of Jews being turned back from the U.S. was the "MS St. Louis" in 1939, when over 900 Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany were denied entry by the U.S. (and Cuba/Canada) and forced to return to Europe, with many later dying in the Holocaust, highlighting America's restrictive immigration policies, antisemitism, and xenophobia during that era, which limited Jewish refugee intake despite the unfolding crisis.

Note that the USA was (and still is to a great extant) an explicitly Christian nation. These American attitudes derived mainly from their European ancestry.

 

[Bomb#20]

I apologize for being rude, but Holocaust denialism, even the selective variety, is a pretty sore point with me.

"rude". Interesting choice of thing to apologize for. Falsely accusing someone of Holocaust denialism is a lot of things you'd owe an apology for and "rude" doesn't really make the top ten. So you can quote him denying the Holocaust, can you?

If pood is a Holocaust denialist, I'm Lincoln's grandfather.

Yeah, well, Abraham Lincoln was my (checks notes) 5th great-grandmothers cousin by marriage, and as his cousin but also someone who reads, I can assure you that Lincoln was not the kind of man who hears terrible news and immediately starts brainstorming ways to obscure facts and hide his own complicity in whatever happened. He never had to contend with the Holocaust but he did live through another shameful period of history, and his response was to face the evils of his time head on, not construct fanciful false narratives that absolved his church or his countrymen from moral responsibility for slavery and insurrection. He died, in fact, of standing on principle.

Really. So you have evidence that Lincoln squarely took responsibility for the Sand Creek Massacre, have you?

 

[Bomb#20]

Then you lack both historical education and reading comprehension. Hitler was the head of an explicitly theocratic state, that both created and endorsed a Christian denomination.

Nazism was an explicitly Christian movement.

Hitler was the head of an explicitly socialist state, that both created and endorsed a socialist denomination. Nazism was an explicitly socialist movement.

So do you agree that socialists were responsible for the Holocaust?

 

[Bomb#20]

All Nazis were Christian,

I think that's the second* most ridiculous thing you've claimed in this thread, beating out a lot of doozies. Bormann was a famously outspoken atheist, and a lot of the top guys were more deist than theist. The name "Christian" in their official religion means about as much as the "Democratic" in "German Democratic Republic" -- they'd stripped out pretty much everything that makes Christianity Christian except the intolerance.

(* After pood allegedly being a holocaust denier.)

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Then you lack both historical education and reading comprehension. Hitler was the head of an explicitly theocratic state, that both created and endorsed a Christian denomination.

Nazism was an explicitly Christian movement.

Hitler was the head of an explicitly socialist state, that both created and endorsed a socialist denomination. Nazism was an explicitly socialist movement.

So do you agree that socialists were responsible for the Holocaust?

Not this old Nazis were socialists bullshit again. The Nazis were corporatists, similar to current USA under Trump (though of course it existed for decades before Trump, but has expanded greatly under him). If the Nazis were socialists then North Korea is the most democratic nation in the world, because its in their name.
The US army is a socialist organization, but I bet you don't complain about them being socialist.

 

[laughing dog]

Then you lack both historical education and reading comprehension. Hitler was the head of an explicitly theocratic state, that both created and endorsed a Christian denomination.

Nazism was an explicitly Christian movement.

Hitler was the head of an explicitly socialist state, that both created and endorsed a socialist denomination. Nazism was an explicitly socialist movement.

So do you agree that socialists were responsible for the Holocaust?

Not this old Nazis were socialists bullshit again. The Nazis were corporatists, similar to current USA under Trump (though of course it existed for decades before Trump, but has expanded greatly under him). If the Nazis were socialists then North Korea is the most democratic nation in the world, because its in their name.
The US army is a socialist organization, but I bet you don't complain about them being socialist.

Doncha unnerstan? The Nazis said they were socialists!!!!!!

 

[Politesse]

I apologize for being rude, but Holocaust denialism, even the selective variety, is a pretty sore point with me.

"rude". Interesting choice of thing to apologize for. Falsely accusing someone of Holocaust denialism is a lot of things you'd owe an apology for and "rude" doesn't really make the top ten. So you can quote him denying the Holocaust, can you?

If pood is a Holocaust denialist, I'm Lincoln's grandfather.

Yeah, well, Abraham Lincoln was my (checks notes) 5th great-grandmothers cousin by marriage, and as his cousin but also someone who reads, I can assure you that Lincoln was not the kind of man who hears terrible news and immediately starts brainstorming ways to obscure facts and hide his own complicity in whatever happened. He never had to contend with the Holocaust but he did live through another shameful period of history, and his response was to face the evils of his time head on, not construct fanciful false narratives that absolved his church or his countrymen from moral responsibility for slavery and insurrection. He died, in fact, of standing on principle.

Really. So you have evidence that Lincoln squarely took responsibility for the Sand Creek Massacre, have you?

The difference between you and me is that I feel no need to censor history just to push some version of it. I'd be more than willing to hold Lincoln accountable for his actions after Sand Creek. Are you?