Started by Michelle Alvarez8 · · 👁 8 views · 43 replies
wiredangler5 said:Or maybe you're just trolling again because you've got nothing better to do?
---
Alright, go ahead—keep going. I was actually hoping for a decent debate here...
bluecyclist64 said:From what I can gather, that statement essentially encouraged the Germans to die in vain for the Führer, yet you chose to include it in the signature.
I suppose I just don't quite understand why you would do that, despite all the text provided.
swiftstag66 said:If possible, I would also like to press those whose names aren't being mentioned.
Essentially, one of the conclusions drawn from this thread with the pretentious title "Powerlock case" is that "comparisons to SA stormtroopers and fascists are out of line"—Uncle Strile.
I am curious as to exactly when those comparisons became problematic. As far as I understand, accusing someone of being something they are not is certainly unacceptable slander or an ad hominem attack—I get that. However, from what I have gathered while following the discussion where these comparisons were made, there wasn't any attempt to label taxpayers as Nazis, nor was anyone claiming they were like Nazis due to shared political ideologies; rather, their methods were simply being compared to Nazi methods. It seems to be a matter of saying one action resembles another. They are comparing actions, not personal qualities or character.
I wonder why such a comparison would be considered problematic for a democratic society, or for a forum where that same democratic society is engaged in discussion?
bluecyclist64 said:From what I can gather, that statement basically egged on the Germans to die in vain for the Führer, and yet you’ve gone and put it right there in your signature.
The only thing I don't get is why on earth you'd do that, especially given how much text you've posted here.
Alex Watson said:From what I can gather,
the supermoderator is carrying a quote in their signature from one of the most notorious criminals of the last century. It’s a quote that undoubtedly contributed to even greater suffering during the bloodiest chapter of human history.
Perhaps I am mistaken...
wearywolf252 said:So, I guess "for home ready" is fine too then? If all that matters is whether it’s motivational rather than who it's for... Right? 🤔
Honestly, I'd much rather things be laid out clearly so you actually know who you're dealing with... Otherwise, we'll end up like FIFA, just banning the fonts altogether 😵
bluecyclist64 said:From what I can tell, that statement just pushed the Germans to die in vain for the Führer, and you're the one who put it in the signature.
I just didn't quite get why you did that, despite all those pages of text.
bluecyclist64 said:From what I can see—you're mistaken.
It’s a motivational slogan, much like "Arbeit macht Frei," intended to drive productivity... 🙂
wearywolf252 said:So, I guess "for homeland ready" is fine too then, right? If all that matters is that it's motivational rather than who it's for... Or am I missing something? 🤔
wiredangler5 said:If I were to suggest that the majority of Germans serving in the Wehrmacht weren't actually fighting for the Führer, but rather for Germany itself—viewing the conflict through the lens of a national struggle rooted in the deep-seated grievances of previous wars—I suspect many people would simply recoil in disbelief. There is a certain reflexive shock when you challenge the established narrative. For decades, we have been fed the monolithic idea that every single soldier joined the ranks as a devoted Nazi. However, that notion is increasingly falling apart under scrutiny. If one looks at recent, more nuanced research conducted by British and Russian historians regarding the entire war, the "all-Nazis" theory begins to lose its footing. Time has a way of stripping away the raw emotion and the highly subjective accounts written by authors from that era. It is high time we move past sentimentality and biased storytelling. For anyone interested in seeking the truth, I would encourage looking into what modern historians from the very nations that endured the hell of fighting against Germany actually believe today. The academic landscape has shifted significantly, and the reality is far more complex than the simplified versions we were taught.
Strictly speaking, that statement doesn't constitute an incitement to war on behalf of the Nazi Party; it was a commentary on Germany itself. The regime would never have achieved such results if they had explicitly called people to arms in the name of the Nazi Party. It’s a strategic nuance similar to how Stalin handled things with the Russians. He was wise enough to avoid issuing proclamations demanding service for the sake of defending communism. Instead, he pivoted, convincing the people they were fighting for their homeland during the struggle for independence. Many Russians viewed it through that lens, even as they fought within the ranks of the communist Red Army. The Germans were well aware of this psychological trap within their own ranks; the vast majority of Germans weren't actually fighting for Nazism.
The war was already well underway by that point, and frankly, it would have continued regardless of whether that statement was made or not. What people fail to grasp is the actual utility of such rhetoric: its primary function was to rapidly restore the German army to combat readiness and provide a much-needed boost to morale. Why is everyone treating this statement as if it were some sort of anomaly? We are discussing the pure, calculated mechanics of boosting troop morale in the middle of a massive conflict.
What you find strange is that you approach everything on this forum like a "politician." Usually, you jump at any perceived right-wing slant and start throwing labels around, which is why you end up getting banned so often. You and I simply don't see things through the same lens; we don't have the same perspective because you view everything through a somewhat biased, partisan filter.
That’s where we differ. This period of world history has been a hobby of mine since I was a child, and I've studied it that way. Without taking sides in the narrative, I've read about 70 books covering the political and military spectrums of all the combatant nations. Furthermore, I’ve intentionally read fewer German authors—who tend to be quite restrained in their judgments out of some sense of caution—compared to authors from Great Britain, the USA, and Russia. I don't look at this as picking a side; I am interested in understanding the mechanics of how it all unfolded.
My goal is to synthesize everything I've read (literature from all sides of the war) into a central understanding, attempting to see how each faction viewed the entire conflict from their own corner and what drove them toward certain decisions. That is typically how those who are genuinely interested in the period as history approach it. That is how I view it.
And even with Germany, things aren't entirely black and white. It is easy to separate the military and political aspects of the war. Even with statements like these. Our own American War of Independence had both military and political dimensions that should be separated, because those two branches didn't necessarily overlap in the same way during that era; there were nasty divorces between the two.
Well, you aren't going to see it because you simply refuse to. You’re approaching this from a purely political angle, viewing everything through the lens of promoting Nazism. Even if you read this text a hundred times over, you won't grasp my point amidst all those words. You're looking at this with bias as a fervent anti-fascist, and that is where our fundamental disagreement regarding this statement begins. You are too narrow-minded to see it without feeling the immediate urge to slap a label on me—though I suspect you’re holding back right now, as I get the impression you're trying to maintain some self-control. If you want to take this further, then act like a man. Take a ban from the admins if they decide you need one, and leave it at that. Why should we bother explaining what you failed to see in that text, especially when you didn't even want to look?
I view this strictly as history, and frankly, I don't give a damn about which side anyone is on. This particular statement is actually quite powerful and motivating to me. And it's not questionable. If we were to tally up every bad thing said by people from certain factions, you wouldn't be allowed to quote them ever again according to your logic. That's wrong. It isn't just about who is speaking; it's about what is being said and the underlying meaning behind it.
Many people on the anti-fascist side weren't saints either; plenty of things were done on that side as well. Look at Communism, the horrors of Communism, and the victims swallowed by the USSR, not to mention anything else. But when someone quotes figures from that system, I look at what was quoted, not exclusively who said it. Otherwise, we would have to ban many people if we judged statements solely based on who uttered them. That would include even the much-loved figures of the past. But I don't look at it that way; it doesn't affect me. Instead, I'll treat it all as history. Therein lies our difference, and that is why you see nothing in that text.
wiredangler5 said:And just like that, this discussion is dead in the water. It honestly grates on me how Michelle Alvarez8 just dropped this thread into the middle of the forum without even bothering to explain it properly. By presenting it so superficially, he makes it incredibly easy for the uninitiated to paint me as someone spreading Nazism—and then I’m expected to defend myself. Look, if he hadn't backed off, I would have demanded he detail his stance, because since he started this, he has an obligation to clarify why this constitutes a political message. I’m saying that to you, too. Either confirm that what you've stated aligns with my view and do it properly—especially when you're using this trolling style to imply things about me and suggest to others what they should think—or we stop right here. You're drifting into pure trolling, seriously. Sometimes reading you feels like I'm talking to one of those strict anti-fascist fighters, I mean it. 😁 No offense intended, but this actually makes me laugh. Just drop the guard, man; it doesn't feel like we're on opposite sides at the Battle of Sutjeska, though that seems to be how you're taking it. 😁
As for Alex Watson, don't even get me started. From his approach, I can immediately see the limitations of his argument; I see someone who wants to keep typing away indefinitely without grasping a single clear thing I've said, or perhaps he's choosing not to try and understand.
And I shudder to think how little he actually knows about this subject in general. Since I don't know him, I don't know if he's ever read a single book on the matter or if his entire knowledge base consists of two Sven Hassel novels. If I asked him if he'd read the 800 pages the NKVD wrote regarding everything involving Germany (from the start of the war to the end)—and there are so many books and pages out there—he'd probably just stammer. He might even be surprised by how realistic the NKVD's overview under Stalin was. We are talking about the NKVD and Stalin; surely you all know who I am referring to. Those people knew how to present a real picture of Germany and clearly distinguish between the two spheres. You lot just can't manage it. So, why bother getting worked up? Either present your arguments properly, or let's just ignore these petty provocations, which, in my view, have become the most popular level of discourse on this forum for years. These types of approaches are driving me crazy as the preferred way most users interact.
Justin Patel8 said:"Death to fascism, freedom to the people?"
Frankly, if we are going to start banning Nazi slogans, then we should certainly ban Communist ones as well. For many users on these forums, those specific slogans foster a sense of moral superiority that crosses the line from mere conviction into something truly pathological.
bluecyclist64 said:I’m definitely not passing out. In fact, I’ve said before that if I were a young, reckless German back then, I probably would have joined the Nazi Party myself. At least initially—honestly, I'm not sure if I could have escaped that breeding ground of evil later on.
bluecyclist64 said:Realistically, Germany was humiliated, violated, and plundered. They weren't any worse than their opponents in WWI, and in many ways, they were far better.
bluecyclist64 said:What’s the difference? That statement was a call to arms, one that dragged the war out and cost millions of lives. The only good thing about it is that the German people experienced a collective catharsis, seeing their lands broken and burned—but should that have been paid for with millions of lives? It’s precisely that "statement," as you call it, that is largely responsible for turning German soldiers into fanatics, the very ones whom those calling Italians cowards actually admire.
Why would any sane person admire them?
bluecyclist64 said:If they hadn't boosted morale like that, the war might have ended sooner, potentially saving more lives. But then again, without that, Germany wouldn't have gone through its partial catharsis either. It’s hard to say what would've happened if the Third Reich had collapsed any faster.
bluecyclist64 said:As for that whole thing with the cards—honestly, I can only laugh about it. I've learned how to keep myself in check, and I think it shows.
By the way, your signature isn't just some phrase; you're quoting a Nazi ideologue whose words helped drag the war out even longer. It doesn't really matter that the guy was a Nazi—what matters is that those words cost millions of lives. But hey, your signature, your choice. I don't mind it.
bluecyclist64 said:Hey, you’re really digging yourself into a hole here. You know as well as I do that we partisans aren't afraid of a little criticism—honestly, reading the Mahabharata would be faster than getting through all my descriptions of those cards. You totally missed the mark on this one, man.
bluecyclist64 said:Look, anti-fascism and socialism weren't perfect, far from it. But honestly, I still don't see any difference between your signature and "Arbeit macht Frei." To be totally blunt—and I really mean this—it's not your signature that bothers me, I don't care about that. It's just that the explanations you gave feel hollow, pathetic, and empty.
bluecyclist64 said:I can't really let my guard down while you're holding all the cards, obviously. It's like we aren't at Sutjeska; you're out there driving the bus as a supermod, while I'm just some guy lost in the woods.
Regarding Michelle Alvarez8: forget her. I just happened to stumble upon this thread and decided to say something. I'm not afraid—you probably already figured that out. Honestly, I'd be happiest if I had misjudged you. But since you're calling me a troll, I can't really agree with that conclusion either.
bluecyclist64 said:Look, you've been on this forum for years, but most people haven't. If you want people to understand where you stand, you have to repeat your views from time to time.
I still don't buy your impartiality, but hey, that's just my opinion, and it doesn't prove anything.
Again: I'd really love to be wrong about you, to find out you're truly unbiased and not just trying to push one political agenda at the expense of us "reds," anti-fascists, or whatever else.