ChatterBank4 mins ago
What is/was a Nazi?
I would some-one to describe just what sort of beliefs a typical Nazi held or holds, and if they think that the 'Nazi' is still around today. I know its all in the history books, but what does the modern UK citizen understand a Nazi to be, or to have been?
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by merlin58. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The direct meaning, of course is National Socialist German Workers' political party. It came to power during the 1930's concurrent with the rise of Adolf Hitler. At it's core it was violently anti-communist and almost as violently pro-German or more correctly those aspects seen by Hitler, Goebbels and all the other proponents as true Aryan. This becomes the heart and soul of the Party and it's aims. From this flows all the terrible atrocities perpetrated on the Jews, physically unfit and other non-desirables. As with all true socialists, private ownership of property was dependent on approval by the State.
By the way, I'm not a U.K. citizen, but one of the U.S. I
think it's safe to say, however, that citizens of both countries would or at least should be able to describe Nazi's in their historic setting...
The Neo-Nazi's seen today are but a pale reflection of the true monsters that arose in Germany and Austria after WW !. They still are as hatefilled as their predecessors, but not nearly so organized or proliferate.... Still, they bear watching....
By the way, I'm not a U.K. citizen, but one of the U.S. I
think it's safe to say, however, that citizens of both countries would or at least should be able to describe Nazi's in their historic setting...
The Neo-Nazi's seen today are but a pale reflection of the true monsters that arose in Germany and Austria after WW !. They still are as hatefilled as their predecessors, but not nearly so organized or proliferate.... Still, they bear watching....
Dont think all Nazis are white, right wing, thugs.
I think some of the Muslim preachers of hate we see around today are Nazis.
If you ignore who they are but listen to what they say it is pure Nazi.
Kill gays and jews, bring down the democratic government, bring in new laws to maim and torture people.
Some of the Muslim leaders speaking on Dispatches on C4 a couple of weeks ago would not have been out of place in the nazi party.
I think some of the Muslim preachers of hate we see around today are Nazis.
If you ignore who they are but listen to what they say it is pure Nazi.
Kill gays and jews, bring down the democratic government, bring in new laws to maim and torture people.
Some of the Muslim leaders speaking on Dispatches on C4 a couple of weeks ago would not have been out of place in the nazi party.
First let me make it quite clear that I do not in anyway agree with the content of this web site, that I accidently came across whilst seaching this subject, But it does make interesting reading. What association it has with the Bible I do not know.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/roundone.htm
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/roundone.htm
What really irritates me are people who use the terms "Nazi" or "Fascist" without really understanding what those terms mean.
Clanad has given a really good answer, above.
In my understanding, "(neo)-Nazi" must have some racist element in their belief.
Contrary to what most people seem to think, Fascists were not racist. Mussolini only started to persecute Jews (and some others) when Hitler started twisting his arm (so to speak), because Mussolini needed Hitler more than the other way round (the Nazis thought the Italians were somewhat soft). What Mussolini undoubtedly was, was nationalist, seeking to recreate the glory of Ancient Rome in a modern state (hence his use of the fasces (bundle of staves surrounding an axe), an ancient Roman symbol, from which the name Fascist came.
An old colleague of mine (and a committed socialist) held the view that, although unpleasant, the Italian Fascists were the least bad of all the European right-wing groups around at the time.
Clanad has given a really good answer, above.
In my understanding, "(neo)-Nazi" must have some racist element in their belief.
Contrary to what most people seem to think, Fascists were not racist. Mussolini only started to persecute Jews (and some others) when Hitler started twisting his arm (so to speak), because Mussolini needed Hitler more than the other way round (the Nazis thought the Italians were somewhat soft). What Mussolini undoubtedly was, was nationalist, seeking to recreate the glory of Ancient Rome in a modern state (hence his use of the fasces (bundle of staves surrounding an axe), an ancient Roman symbol, from which the name Fascist came.
An old colleague of mine (and a committed socialist) held the view that, although unpleasant, the Italian Fascists were the least bad of all the European right-wing groups around at the time.
reinganum
Mussolini's army invaded ethiopia in 1935 killing over 750,000 ethiopians. In this invasion he ordered countless atrocities including genocide see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussolini
I don't think that just because in the beginning his policies were not overtly racist we can make excuses for him. Who knows what would have happened if italy had the military strength of germany!
Mussolini's army invaded ethiopia in 1935 killing over 750,000 ethiopians. In this invasion he ordered countless atrocities including genocide see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussolini
I don't think that just because in the beginning his policies were not overtly racist we can make excuses for him. Who knows what would have happened if italy had the military strength of germany!
dawkins
The Italian invasion of Ethiopia was colonial expansion and conquest, resulting in heavy casualties among the Ethiopians. All colonizing countries (including our own) have been guilty of similar things, especially when a mechanized army has been fighting local forces armed only with simpler weapons.
The matter becomes even more complicated when we consider, say, the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. No-one has claimed that the Hutus were Nazis but genocide was practised on an appalling scale.
The best analogy when considering totalitarian states guilty of mass murder is that, while Stalin and Mao used (effectively) a blunt instrument, the Nazis used a surgical scalpel.
The difference between Fascism and Nazism is discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist#Differenc es_and_similarities_with_Nazism
(You will note, as commonly happens with political articles, there is some dispute over accuracy or neutrality, but the differences between the two ideologies are much as I previously understood them.)
The Italian invasion of Ethiopia was colonial expansion and conquest, resulting in heavy casualties among the Ethiopians. All colonizing countries (including our own) have been guilty of similar things, especially when a mechanized army has been fighting local forces armed only with simpler weapons.
The matter becomes even more complicated when we consider, say, the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. No-one has claimed that the Hutus were Nazis but genocide was practised on an appalling scale.
The best analogy when considering totalitarian states guilty of mass murder is that, while Stalin and Mao used (effectively) a blunt instrument, the Nazis used a surgical scalpel.
The difference between Fascism and Nazism is discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist#Differenc es_and_similarities_with_Nazism
(You will note, as commonly happens with political articles, there is some dispute over accuracy or neutrality, but the differences between the two ideologies are much as I previously understood them.)
reinganum
That ethiopia was colonial expansion is irrelevant. The Nazi's were obviously committed to colonial expansion otherwise we wouldn't have had the second world war. Italy's invasion of ethiopia in 1935 was state sponsored genocide on an industrial scale. What is more, the Italian's' use of concentration camps, chemical weapons and genocide predates there alliance with nazi germany. Fascism and nazism have far more similarities than differences. Your marker, race, was a difference in that it was intrinsic to nazi ideology but Italy had no problem incorporating it into their system when necessary. They were both expansive totalitarian regimes who fulfilled their agendas through violence.
That ethiopia was colonial expansion is irrelevant. The Nazi's were obviously committed to colonial expansion otherwise we wouldn't have had the second world war. Italy's invasion of ethiopia in 1935 was state sponsored genocide on an industrial scale. What is more, the Italian's' use of concentration camps, chemical weapons and genocide predates there alliance with nazi germany. Fascism and nazism have far more similarities than differences. Your marker, race, was a difference in that it was intrinsic to nazi ideology but Italy had no problem incorporating it into their system when necessary. They were both expansive totalitarian regimes who fulfilled their agendas through violence.
1 to 12 of 12
