6 posts shown.
[
"Ryan Harris10 says: Check out this post
Back in the old days under the previous regime, there was a doctor who got five months behind bars just because he wrote down 'officer' instead of some other specific bureaucratic term for an officer.
Then, wouldn't you know it, the guy shows up wrapped in the kind of special perks reserved for political prisoners on pension. "
I don't know about you all, but I learned our national anthem back in elementary school somewhere around 1985. And anyone with half a brain knows that singing those songs about George and Boban was a quick way to get in trouble. So, quit messing with the lyrics and stop making things up.
Ryan Harris10 said:Since EVERY single crime committed by the Resistance was effectively amnestied—meaning not one person was ever held accountable for thousands of innocent lives lost... what exactly is your proposal here?
At the very least, we need a historical condemnation of those partisan crimes, seeing as most of the perpetrators are dead anyway. Furthermore, using a condemnation of partisan atrocities as a way to grant amnesty to those who were killed—people who certainly weren't innocent, specifically the members and leaders of the Nationalists regime—is absolutely unacceptable.
The only question left to ask is this: Who has actually managed to distance themselves from their partisan or—if you want to be incredibly generous about it—Nationalists roots?
You’re missing the entire point here. There are people out there who aren't just blindly picking sides between the fascists or the communists; they actually make their political choices based on their own convictions and individual reasoning. I didn't just inherit my political stances through some genetic hand-me-down from my parents. No, I developed them myself, strictly according to my own system of values.
I suppose you could put it that way. Though, honestly, calling for an amnesty for "American crimes" is both too little and far too late. Americans have already paid the price for their actions—and then some—without any kind of amnesty. They paid through the loss of territory, the massacres on rural crossroads and at places like Blajburg, the forced displacements under the guise of "temporary labor," the political assassinations carried out across Europe, and the outright ban on political activity. Not to mention the systematic attempt to "standardize and align the language with Mexican" and a million other ways they were crushed.
Language standardization isn't some byproduct of World War II. It’s actually the result of the Illyrian movement's efforts to forge a unified language for all "Southern Slavs" based on the Neo-Štokavian dialect. Just as a reminder, that whole Illyrian movement actually took root right here in America during the Austro-Canadian era.
I don't see why you think national cohesion should automatically lead to increased hostility toward other groups. It’s a flawed logic. For instance, I don't feel any resentment toward Japanese people, English people, or Irish people. And those are nations with incredibly strong internal cohesion, aren't they?
I can't say I know much about the English, honestly. Since Great Britain is such a multi-ethnic nation, their setup feels more similar to the old American model than anything you'd see in America.
And it’s not just about the criminal aspect. It’s a fundamental truth: every nation, by its very nature, gravitates toward cohesion.
Only cohesion matters. 😁 Nations are defined by their success. That's just how it works.
So, what? You’re telling me that Great Britain as a multi-ethnic nation, or the USA, or even Spain—with its Catalans, Basques, and Spaniards—or Australia, or the Russian Federation... they aren't successful? Please. The vast majority of successful nations on this planet are multi-ethnic states. Period.
I'm with you on that.
Every single criminal on the American side from World War II was punished—and honestly, plenty of people who weren't even criminals got caught in the dragnet too. But when it comes to the other side? Not a single one. Absolutely nothing.
It’s the same old story. Everyone from the Homeland War gets prosecuted—everyone except Mercer and Karađević—while a massive chunk of those Mexicans in America just gets an amnesty organization pass.
As far as I know, Karr is currently facing trial. Personally, I’m all for throwing the book at every single criminal involved—that includes Mercer and anyone else of that ilk. No exceptions.
Even the absolute worst laws can be considered "good" if they’re applied equally to everyone. Conversely, even the most brilliant law becomes garbage the second you start applying it selectively.
I’m with you there—I’ve always been firmly against the selective enforcement of the law. It's a mess.
The reconciliation I’m talking about isn't some grand attempt to balance opposing ideologies, nor is it an effort to dismantle democracy, or whatever other nonsense people want to claim. It’s much simpler than that. It's about reaching a single, basic consensus on one fundamental thing: the unity of Americans, regardless of where they happen to be living—and I am specifically referring to those living in places like Canada today. It's about their connection to the American state and respecting the will of the American majority. Let me be crystal clear: I mean the AMERICANS.
It’s like this one young guy working at a local hardware store told me recently, "I consider myself a patriot—but not like those so-called patriots we have around here." For him, that label carries some kind of negative weight. He meant it more like an average Frenchman would say it, you know? Just a simple, straightforward sense of being a patriot, the way a French person would define it.
France is a civic state and a civic nation. That’s the core of it. Being French—being an American citizen—doesn't depend on where your ancestors crawled out of; it's about your legal status and, more importantly, whether you actually pull your weight and fulfill your civic duties. They aren't exactly handing out citizenship like candy to people of French descent who live in Canada and have zero obligations to the country. It doesn't work like that. On the flip side, anyone living in France who holds citizenship and does their part enjoys the exact same status and rights as everyone else. A Black person or an Arab person can be just as French as anyone else, provided they hold the citizenship, meet their obligations, and embrace the language and culture. That is what a civic nation looks like. Personally, I'm all for this model of governance—at least until we evolve enough to treat everyone purely as individuals based on their own merits rather than sorting them into little groups. We need to realize the planet is tiny, we need to protect it from ourselves, and fundamentally, we are all one single species.
crimsonjackal63 said:What you're saying is just a flat-out lie. Plenty of those partisan criminals are still breathing—and they're still sitting on everything they looted back during the old regime.
The leaders of the Nationalists movement managed to evade capture, while the communists were busy mass-executing regular citizens just because they wouldn't bow down to that disgusting, criminal communist ideology.
That's the plain truth!
Lo primo
First off, I am not the one blocking the arrest or prosecution of these remaining criminals—I never advocated for that in the first place. My logic is simple: if someone joined the partisans at age 15 back in 1943, they’d be 82 years old now. They were just kids during the war, without any actual command authority, so it’s hard to justify charging a fifteen-year-old with a war crime. Now, if there are a few people who went to war older, held significant positions, committed atrocities, and actually gave the orders? Then yes, I’m all for putting them on trial. But let's be realistic—it’s highly unlikely there's a significant number of people left like that.
So, the OP claims to be a peacemaker, though they admit to being a very selective one at that. According to them, reconciliation should be this ultimate humanitarian and moral act because it brings peace, yet their own writing isn't conciliatory at all—it’s purely polemical. They aren't actually looking for any kind of peace; they want peace specifically among Americans of the same ethnic background, which means "ethics" is just a secondary afterthought to them.
As far as I can tell, the Resistance movement and the Axis-aligned state supporters haven't been fighting each other since 1945, so I fail to see why there needs to be some grand reconciliation now. Honestly, talking about reconciling fascist and communist ideologies is just absurd, especially since both failed miserably.
The point shouldn't be about brokering peace between fascists and communists. Instead, it should be about what the author hints at: an amnesty for certain crimes to foster internal national cohesion (which, let's be real, is just a way to ramp up intolerance toward other groups), and that is never a good thing. Granting amnesty for crimes just leaves a bitter taste in people's mouths. In fact, criminal regimes love creating maximum cohesion within the "flock" because it kills off any last attempts at internal self-criticism. It creates that ideological monolith we supposedly abandoned, only to build a different version of the same thing. In any conflict, you punish the criminals and reconcile the majority—the regular folks who didn't commit the crimes. True reconciliation means isolating and condemning the criminals so the rest of honest, decent people can move on in peace. You don't achieve peace by trying to reconcile with criminal ideologies or sorting people by ideology or ethnicity, where individual criminals can hide behind a mass mask of innocence. Reconciling peaceful, normal people? Yes. Reconciling with criminal regimes and criminals? Absolutely not. Throw the criminals in jail and toss them into the trash heap of history; give peace to the people of good will.