Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DaveOJ12 t1_iqzglq0 wrote

7

Dont_Wanna_Not_Gonna t1_iqzizpn wrote

Whatever you say, Curt Schilling.

Membership in the party is an extremely narrow definition of who qualifies as a Nazi, and one that historians reject. Early in the war formal membership surged to about 6.5 million Germans, or about 12%. (Dietrich Orlow). But in 1933, the Nazi party won about 33% of the vote in the last free election before the war. (Georg Fertig). “There is no reason to assume that this share decreased before, say, late 1944.” (Thomas Keuhne).

Statistics aside, why don’t you go find a few combat vets from that time and see whether they made a distinction between party members and non-members in who, of the people that tried to kill them, they considered to be a Nazi?

Let me know how that goes for you.

−4

8bitbebop4 t1_iqzyfoj wrote

That's on par with interning American Japanese for the actions of the Axis.

−5

Dont_Wanna_Not_Gonna t1_ir09q52 wrote

Dear God! No it’s not.

−2

8bitbebop4 t1_ir1grog wrote

It absolutely is. How are you going to attribute nazism to someone if they're not a nazi just because of their heritage? How can you accuse all Japanese Americans of being part of the axis just because of their heritage? Thats incredibly bigoted of you

1

Dont_Wanna_Not_Gonna t1_ir3l6r2 wrote

What kind of ass-backward reasoning is that? First, I didn't accuse Japanese Americans of being part of the Axis and, as I'm sure you noticed, my post didn't have anything to do with Japanese Americans; you brought that up.

Second, Nazism is not a person's "heritage," it is a political ideology/movement. It is an absolutely intellectually dishonest argument to try to draw a parallel between my position that one did not have to be a member of the Nazi party to be considered a Nazi and the unjust treatment of Japanese Americans during WWII.

As for how I "attribute nazism [sic] to someone if they're not a nazi [sic]," that statement doesn't make any sense. If what you're asking is how I conclude that someone can be a Nazi without being a member of the Nazi party, go back and read what I wrote. I cited Orlow, Fertig, and Keuhne, all respected professors of German history/politics, for the proposition that membership in the Nazi party was too narrow a definition for who qualifies as a Nazi.

Lindbergh was a Nazi, regardless of whether he was a member of the Nazi party. As noted above, membership in the party is not a requirement for the designation of being a Nazi. Lindbergh moved from the U.S. to Europe, in part, to be closer to French scientist Dr. Alexis Carrel and was taken with Carrel's ideas about superior races and programs to purge criminals, the insane, and any others that weakened society. (Sound familiar?) He was the personal guest of Hermann Goering at the 1936 Summer Olympics and was so impressed by the "energy" of Germany under the Nazis that he planned to move to Berlin. This impressive "energy" was a result of "dictatorial direction." Those are his words, not mine. He was gushing over a dictatorial system of governance, which is, of course, an essential feature of Nazism.

Goering, on behalf of Hitler, awarded Lindbergh the Service Cross of the German Eagle after news about the persecution of Jews had been spreading out of Germany. He then gave a radio address in America urging the U.S. to stay out of the war and discussed his belief that "racial strength is vital" and civilization depended preventing "the infiltration of inferior blood." (Does that sound familiar too?)

Loving dictators in general, and Hitler in particular, along with believing in racial superiority and defending against "inferior blood" makes anyone a Nazi in my book.

Edit: Autocorrect typo.

1

8bitbebop4 t1_ir5195d wrote

Its an analogy. And im not reading all the ramblings of a stranger on the internet. Learn to write concisely. Gleaning your text, you are still trying to classify people as being a nazi despite not being a nazi. Just as what happened to Japanese Americans during WW2 (analogy). That's an incredibly bigoted approach. Sins of the father, etc.

1

Dont_Wanna_Not_Gonna t1_ir5hjut wrote

What is it that you think I am saying that is analogous to imprisoning Japanese Americans during WWII?

Putting it in a little different way, who exactly do you think I am judging/classifying/condemning for the sins of their fathers?

0