These members are not former. These are articles are about practicing members, and that young man, who called his girlfriend a slut when she was raped. He sounds like he was a piece of shit before he was a Nazs. So that answer is, it depends, but again we don’t have congressmen catering to ISIS and Alqueda. Hell for these other groups, we created even new ways to wage war, made up terms like War of Terror, War on Drugs, Police Wars where no actual war can occur. For the one group we actually want to war against, somehow now it’s so different. Again,why?
I’ll merrily give Soapy the answer he’s probably hunting for:
Nazis and ISIS members are unforgivable and inherently irredeemable. They might be coaxed into a position where the immediate threat they present to the world is diminished more or less permanently, or even come to hold less objectionable views.
But I think there are certain things a man can do that can’t ever truly be forgiven, a weight upon his “soul,” such as it were.
I mean, it also happens that I consider “having voted for Trump” sufficient grounds for this case, but that’s a different thread.
. . . or is it?
I am not sure what US policy re: nazis vs US policy re: ISIS has to do with whether a person is redeemable or not.
I absolutely believe in forgiveness. There is nothing someone can do that can’t be forgiven. Forgiveness is more about the person doing the forgiving than it is the person who committed the act, but the act of forgiving can lift the weight off the shoulders of the person who did something most would consider unforgivable. But forgiveness is not the same as being freed of consequences.
You read these stories, and they’re often the same, these are young white men who not only thought they would have different lives, they felt entitled to them. They’re not the only ones who feel lost at times, want to belong. Men, women and children of all races feel that way… but what are we doing right now with ISIS, that’s right, arresting people who are trying to aid them, who go to join them, who send money to them and what are we doing with the Nazis… reading articles about them and trying to get to the heart of the matter. These groups are dangerous, but only one of them is predominantly white and doesn’t pose a direct threat to many whites. The others want to kill us all pretty much equally.
It reminds me of the pyscho years ago who blew up abortion clinics who said it wasn’t okay for white women to have abortions but he thought it was okay for black women to do it. He thought that because he doesn’t mind murdering black people. It had nothing to do with his views on abortion.
That’s weird, the roughly 35% of Germans who supported the Nazi party seemed to be redeemable in the years that followed the war, including a member of the Waffen SS who won the Nobel Prize for Literature, another ex-SS member who was Secretary General of the UN in the 1960s, or you know, major parts of both the East and West German’ governments who remained largely run by former Nazis well up into the 70s (and later).
Former nazis played a large part in forming the organisation that would become the European Union, former nazis would play large parts in re-arming west Germany and joining NATO. Given that former nazis made up 1/3rd of the German population, former Nazis undoubtedly played a role in everything positive that came from West Germany post WW2.
They’re all irredeemable though, and they should have all been killed, and blah-di-stupid-blah.
Shit, let’s have another ethnic cleansing, seems to have produced a lot of good people.
/s (almost forgot, but this IS is the internet after all)
Well one group has killed 1 person in the last few years and the other group has killed 100,000+ people in the last few years. And the one person the Nazis killed was white. But yeah, you’re totally right, only a racist would see a distinction between them.
White supremacy killings in America, which includes Nazis, has not been one in the last few years. You can’t use the tiki torch march as your only data point.
The people we are talking about are not former Nazis. They have not renounced a thing… and again, we are not treating this group like we treat all the other violent groups… why not? And Germany is not at all tolerant really of Nazis today…
Irredeemable means they are never able to be redeemed. ArmandoPenblade said Nazi’s are inherently irredeemable. Post WW2 Germany would suggest Nazi’s are eminently redeemable, and it’s possible to quickly and effectively rehabilitate Nazis who actually murdered, killed and supported the killings of others.
Yet Armando believes that neo-Nazis who thus far have used only words, are irredeemable.
It’s just stupid and ignorant of history, reality, or evidence.
It’s also lacking in any sort of empathy or humanity, ironically enough.
“Post WW2 Germany” and “Nazis” are two different things.
It’s arguable that post-WW2 Germany is what it is today because the post-Nazi government excluded former Nazis from power and banned the rise of new Nazis. Which is not rehabilitation at all, in fact it’s the response of a government that believes that Nazis actually are irredeemable.
This is simply not true, they have done a lot more than just use words. Why on earth do you think we’re dealing with a bunch of pacifists?
It’s generally not best practice to revise history, and it’s certainly inadvisable when a cursory google search shows your information to be completely wrong. For example, http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/from-dictatorship-to-democracy-the-role-ex-nazis-played-in-early-west-germany-a-810207.html
Starting in October 1945, the British practiced the so-called “piggyback procedure” in the recently established judicial administration: For each judge without a Nazi past, one judge with former Nazi connections could be appointed. But, by the summer of 1946, even this restriction had been dropped.
Now the halls of justice were even staffed with judges who had once served on the Nazis’ People’s Court (Volksgerichtshof), which was set up in 1934 to handle “political offenses” and became notorious for the frequency, arbitrariness and severity of its punishments. Nevertheless, the civilian courts handling the de-Nazification process merely classified them as “hangers-on.” In 1953, at least 72 percent of judges on the Federal Supreme Court, Germany’s highest court for criminal and civil law, had former Nazi connections. The number increased to 79 percent by 1956 and, in the criminal division, it was at 80 percent by 1962.
After the war, the restoration of former officials to positions in the Foreign Ministry occurred at an astonishing rate. The political division alone soon counted 13 former Nazi Party members among its top officials, while 11 of the 17 senior members of the legal department were former Nazis. “There is no other federal ministry,” then SPD parliamentarian Fritz Erler concluded, “that is maintaining the continuity of Berlin tradition in this manner than the Foreign Ministry.”
The situation was even worse at the BKA. At times, former members of the SS’s Totenkopf division held more than two-thirds of all senior positions. When the agency began looking into the past of its employees in 1960, about 100 officials, or a quarter of the entire workforce, were investigated.
Any history book I have read about post WW2 also suggests that de-nazification was quickly abandoned by Allied Powers (indeed, former Nazi’s were co-opted by the Allies due to the existential threat the Soviet Union provided), and didn’t take hold in the German consciousness for decades.
Please provide your sources. I know you hate facts and evidence, but it would be nice for you to use them at least once. There are apparently a great number of nazis in the USA according to you and others, please present evidence of their great number of violent crimes.
I have one Tiki Torch parade and jail time that already proves your ONLY WORDS claim wrong asshole. And a report that shows how badly the police failed to protect the protests. I promise you they didn’t fail to protect from WORDs.
So, you have evidence of one violent crime out of tens or hundreds of thousands of nazis, but that means they’re all violent.
Thanks for your incredibly insightful contribution as ever Nesrie.
We’ve been through this before. This guy is a Nazi apologist.
That should be easy to prove. I have ten or so posts in the thread, quote me apologising for Nazis.
And apparently a history revisionist if he thinks Germany just gathered up all the old Nazis and sent them to happy camps to give them hugs and here we are today.
Also an asshole.
Well Nesrie, unlike you I’ve provided a source. You know, that awkward thing called evidence? I’m going to guess Timex won’t provide a quote, he also has an aversion to evidence and instead likes to talk big.
Don’t get lost in the weeds folks! That’s how forum friendships fall apart. Ya’ll are arguing over the definition of violent.