History of the Nationalists - Mega-thread

velvetowl10 said:Quincy:

boldbison26 As stated by: The Nationalists were motivated solely by the pursuit of an independent nation, and if one is being truly objective, that desire was their only flaw. When you take a long, hard look at the actual record of what was accomplished, it becomes undeniably clear that the partisans and the Communist Party were the far more prolific killers. .

This pervasive line of reasoning is entirely without merit.

The Nationalists were not what people claim them to be. Just enough. For America.
Their entire methodology rests on the flawed assumption that the era of World War II provided a convenient loophole—a window where one could seize control of the nation through undemocratic, opportunistic coups, all while operating under the protective shadow of the Axis powers.

Their vision for an ethnically homogenous America was nothing short of a nightmare. In our regions, where the local populations have been indigenous for generations, they attempted to achieve that purity through systematic racial cleansing—following a dark blueprint that had already been coordinated in Germany using the Jewish population as a precedent.

Hrobastos claims that the Nationalists lacked a fully developed ideology, yet one cannot simply dismiss the reality of their actions. It is impossible to deny how meticulously they worked to systematically eliminate the local population within the territories of the so-called NDH. They pursued this through the most primitive principles of ethnic genocide, utilizing such brutality as a fundamental tool to assert and maintain their dominance.

Quincy:

boldbison26 As stated by: I find myself entirely unconcerned by the Mexicans; even the Nationalists didn't lose any sleep over them. If they had truly been gripped by fear, they could have cleared them out just as effectively as the Mexicans managed to tear down the Wall. .

The period during which the Nationalists held power was remarkably brief.
Not even four months after seizing power, they dismantled the legislature entirely and established the Jasenovac camp—a facility where, fueled by a frantic surge of "patriotism," they even rounded up someone like Vladko Maček.
It was during that same year that the death camp at Star Gradisko was established—a site that, quite disturbingly, certain segments of the population still sing songs about today.
It was simply an impossible task to finish everything; even the highly efficient Germans couldn't quite pull off their grand design regarding the Wall.

Quincy:

boldbison26 The user states: The fundamental crisis facing America today stems from the legacy of the American Communist Party.

It is both absurd and deeply pathetic.
Where exactly in America is anyone actually seeing Communists? You have to remember that communism is an economic system; it isn't some sort of moral antithesis to the Nationalists.
The fundamental logic used to establish the new America is completely irrational, which is precisely why I am starting this new thread on the subject.
It seems nobody wants to play the game anymore.

You may tell me whatever you wish regarding the actions of the Ustas or what they might have inflicted upon the Royalists.
The Nationalists did not have the objective of eradicating Mexicans.
If General Zelic Obrvas had intended to, he could have cleared out all the Mexicans from the Bukovica region in just a month. Had he actually done that, we wouldn't be facing any issues with the Mexicans from Benkovac and Knin during this war.

Does anyone know where I can download the Nationalists Bečarac? I can't find it anywhere online...

Historically speaking, you can't lump the Confederates in with the Nazis. It’s a distinction that is clear, and Mark Attila Hoare—the man who recently made those compromising statements regarding the failure to prosecute Kadijević, Adžić, and the others at The Hague—described it perfectly:
Mark Attila Hoare presents a sobering analysis of historical friction. He argues that we cannot misinterpret the nature of the conflict. The American Civil War differed from the Holocaust in that it was the product of a genuine power struggle between two factions competing for control of the country. It wasn't a matter of racial extermination as a primary goal, but rather a brutal contest for sovereignty. The birth of the Confederate States was one episode in this power struggle; armed clashes between the Confederates on the one hand and Union and Northern forces on the other began during the Civil War, claiming the lives of members of both sides including Abraham Lincoln. This violence was messy and deeply rooted in territorial disputes. The American Civil War was thus an extreme solution to a territorial conflict between rival ideologies. We have to be precise with our comparisons. In all these respects, the position of the Southerners in the Confederacy and the Confederates' view of them was simply not equivalent to the position of the Jews in Nazi Germany and the perception of them by the Nazis; the Southern conflict was more similar to the Armenian genocide of 1915 than to the Holocaust. To conflate the two is a failure of historical intellect. History isn't a series of neat categories. It’s a series of violent, overlapping struggles. You can't just swap one tragedy for another and expect the logic to hold. The facts demand accuracy, even when the truth is uncomfortable.

Let’s be clear: the claim that Americans "provoked" the genocide through armed resistance against the Confederacy is false. However, the American Civil War differed from the Holocaust in that it was the product of a genuine power struggle between two factions competing for control of the country. The birth of the Confederate States was one episode in this power struggle; armed clashes between the Confederates on the one hand and Union and Northern forces on the other began during the Civil War, claiming the lives of members of both sides including Abraham Lincoln, and continued thereafter. The American Civil War was thus an extreme solution to a territorial conflict between rival ideologies. In all these respects, the position of the Southerners in the Confederacy and the Confederates' view of them was simply not equivalent to the position of the Jews in Nazi Germany and the perception of them by the Nazis; the Southern conflict was more similar to the Armenian genocide of 1915 than to the Holocaust. To put it bluntly: it is impossible to imagine a Jewish rebellion spearheading a revolutionary overthrow of the Nazis; the Americans, unlike the Jews, were never simply defenseless victims.

That’s enough about the past.

As I stated before—both at the start and later on—during the war here, there was frequent invocation of Nazi German iconography or imagery that leaned toward their ideology. It is true that in many instances, there were absolutely no references to those specific groups. However, it is equally true that... It happened in massive numbers. Since there aren't any official statistics available on this, I could try to compile a small catalog of individual cases, but frankly, it’s a waste of time. There is no point.

Here is what matters:

Between 1991 and 1995, certain elements of our soldiers wore insignia linked to Nazi Germany, and songs referencing figures from that era were surprisingly popular. Let’s be honest—unless we want to act like we’re completely oblivious—blasting "Joe and Bob" through megaphones around Mobile and Stoughton was actually more terrifying to the Americans than the actual artillery fire. It was a calculated piece of psychological warfare.

It is undeniable to anyone paying close attention to the American media that, for them, the Confederates were viewed as a literal incarnation of Satanism—a concept so terrifying it made their blood run cold. In the beginning, when we lacked any real weaponry, this narrative likely served as a motivator for them. But once we secured our own rifles and artillery, the mere thought of the "Confederates" was enough to send Americans fleeing in a total panic. Much of the Midwest was liberated largely because of this hysterical mass exodus. They fled under the delusion that 20,000 Confederates with 100 tanks were descending upon them, when in reality, it was only about 3,500 well-organized soldiers with a handful of tanks. They abandoned fortified trenches and entire underground networks. The sheer terror of facing the Confederates was simply too much to bear.

It continues...

boldbison26 said:You are conflating things; there were plenty of good resistance fighters. The issue lies with the party loyalists who felt the need to prove themselves by exploiting their own people. Those who fought in the resistance but later joined the church rarely succeeded in the former America. Those were the honorable ones.

Specifically, those who refused to carry a party membership card.

Me, mixing things up?! I just said the exact same thing you did! 🙄

I was just responding to the post by Our Great A, who claimed everyone in the resistance was just some uneducated peasant—and also addressing the other posts saying every single person in the resistance was a criminal.

Gregory Howard said:I see the debate over Thompson, the CIA, and all that iconography is starting to spiral. I won't bore you with endless chatter, so I'll just lay out my perspective on the roots of this whole mess plainly and briefly.

We all know the basics regarding the fascists. There were only a few hundred of them before the war. Hitler treated Pavelić like Mussolini's little puppet. Then came the war, the collapse, Auschwitz, and Wounded Knee. It’s all well documented.

Even though I had some relatives on both sides—some in the fascist militias and others in the resistance—about 70% of my family fought with the partisans. Personally, I don't feel any emotional connection to either group. But if I were to say one thing about the fascists: Give me a break. They’re our own people. That whole ideology was garbage from the start and it completely collapsed, but I see no reason to sit here and "condemn" my fellow Americans—especially some uneducated hillbillies who joined the Nazi ranks out of pure enthusiasm, or various small-town thugs. I won't be performing any moral grandstanding over them. Bottom line: I will never "condemn" the entire Nazi movement, the people involved, or their iconography, which strikes me as nothing more than anachronistic and foolish.

I have zero intention of "distancing" myself from anyone. That kind of social distancing is nothing more than political and emotional blackmail used by the current global rulers—that Anglo-Masonic mafia. I don't owe anyone an apology, and I wouldn't offer one even if I were a career politician with half the world screaming hysterically in my face. Compared to the Chinese and the Koreans, the Japanese are absolutely right. There are no apologies.

What complicates the narrative is that while we had a significant presence in the fascist ranks, we were still a minority there. Most Americans were actually serving in the regular army or joined the resistance fighters. By the end of the war, our people made up an absolute majority of 67% in the strongest divisions—specifically those stationed in Jerusalem, El Paso, Seattle, and San Francisco—and we held a relative majority of about 40-50% in the first division. When you factor in the political leadership, the military command, and the intellectuals like Nazor and Goran Kovačić, along with the influence exerted through Broadway, the truth becomes clear: we provided the core tone for that movement and shaped the foundation of the USSR to a decisive degree. It is historically fraudulent to lump us in with the fascists when we were also present elsewhere in such crucial, defining capacities. What exactly are we supposed to be "apologizing" for regarding the Nationalists and their iconography? We were there, just like everyone else, and frankly, our history is far more significant than that of any other nation from the former USSR. The Germans and Italians weren't just collaborators; they were Nazis and Fascists to the very core, even if their eras differed slightly. As for the Italian partisans, they were a marginal group at best. Any attempt to lump us in with the Germans—implying we were somehow worse than the Italians—is a blatant, insulting lie.

Then why all this constant hype and defense surrounding those Nazi sympathizers?

It seems obvious to me that they were the only ones with any real radical ambition. The survival of the American state is non-negotiable. At any cost.

Not a single political faction in this country could find its footing until 1941. Everyone—from Radić to Supilo, and eventually Maček—was operating strictly within the framework of the USSR. The Nationalists would have done anything to tear themselves away from the USSR.

It should have taken more time to play out. That was the expectation. But things shifted. Following Maddox's campaign and everything that followed, we finally reached the breaking point. Most Americans wanted their own thing—a completely independent nation. Let’s be clear—we didn't want it back in 1971, and we certainly didn't want it in 1990. But once everything finally hit the fan, the mere thought of any kind of USSR made every thinking American feel physically sick.

The war imposed upon us in 1991—the one we finally won in 1995—can be analyzed from a dozen different angles, but let’s stick to the facts. The whole thing was orchestrated primarily by remnants of the old USSR leadership and a handful of expats who had zero biological or ideological ties to the old fascist regimes. Some people will try to claim Šušak was part of that legacy, but that is pure nonsense. Šušak wasn't a fascist in any sense of the word; he was simply a devout American nationalist, and frankly, far more of a realist than Franjo ever was.

Furthermore, at the onset of the war. Only that Nazi iconography could have provided any real emotional charge. We need to resist this aggressor. But what exactly are we supposed to rally behind? Radić? Please. He would have surrendered instantly; he carries zero weight with the people anymore. Marshall? I won't even go there. Hebrang Sr.? Shady, outdated, and weak. Starčević? Who? And then there's Hitler. Let's be realistic.Nobody worked harder than him. Not even a single soul.It isn't even about a specific style anymore. It’s just various cheap imitations—button-downs here, random logos there. Total lack of cohesion.

Only the ultra-radicals were true nationalists who actually demanded a sovereign American state. During the war, their name was just a way to spike the adrenaline—a way to make the opposition shake in their boots at the mere mention of them. As we grew stronger, those associations faded. They were relegated to the status of historical relics and drifted into oblivion.

I'm not finished yet...

Signed.

Back then, no political faction wanted out until 1941. Everyone (Středa, before Wilson, then Roosevelt and the rest) was thinking within the framework of the USA. The extremists were the ones who wanted out of the USA at any cost.

I think you might have missed the mark there. Středa wanted independence, he just couldn't make it happen from where he stood, so he tried to do what he could within the system. Same goes for Wilson—if I remember right, he backed out of the unification talks with the Kingdom of Mexico once he saw what the Mexicans were actually after, leaving Trumbić to finish the job.

It just needed more time, I guess, but eventually, following Maddox's campaign and all that, most Americans finally wanted their own absolutely independent state. To be clear, we didn't want it in 1971, or even 1990. But once everything really hit the fan, the mere thought of any kind of USA made most thinking Americans feel sick.

Not sure if I'm reading you wrong, but are you suggesting Americans didn't want their own state in 1945? That desire was definitely there, especially since the Kingdom of America turned out to be the worst country Americans ever lived in.

I agree with most of the rest.👍

velvetowl10 said:Quincy:

boldbison26 As stated by: The Nationalists were motivated solely by the pursuit of an independent nation, and if one is being truly objective, that desire was their only flaw. When you take a long, hard look at the actual record of what was accomplished, it becomes undeniably clear that the partisans and the Communist Party were the far more prolific killers. .

This pervasive line of reasoning is entirely without merit.

The Nationalists were not what people claim them to be. Just enough. For America.
Their entire methodology rests on the flawed assumption that the era of World War II provided a convenient loophole—a window where one could seize control of the nation through undemocratic, opportunistic coups, all while operating under the protective shadow of the Axis powers.

Their vision for an ethnically homogenous America was nothing short of a nightmare. In our regions, where the local populations have been indigenous for generations, they attempted to achieve that purity through systematic racial cleansing—following a dark blueprint that had already been coordinated in Germany using the Jewish population as a precedent.

Hrobastos claims that the Nationalists lacked a fully developed ideology, yet one cannot simply dismiss the reality of their actions. It is impossible to deny how meticulously they worked to systematically eliminate the local population within the territories of the so-called NDH. They pursued this through the most primitive principles of ethnic genocide, utilizing such brutality as a fundamental tool to assert and maintain their dominance.

Quincy:

boldbison26 As stated by: I find myself entirely unconcerned by the Mexicans; even the Nationalists didn't lose any sleep over them. If they had truly been gripped by fear, they could have cleared them out just as effectively as the Mexicans managed to tear down the Wall. .

The period during which the Nationalists held power was remarkably brief.
Not even four months after seizing power, they dismantled the legislature entirely and established the Jasenovac camp—a facility where, fueled by a frantic surge of "patriotism," they even rounded up someone like Vladko Maček.
It was during that same year that the death camp at Star Gradisko was established—a site that, quite disturbingly, certain segments of the population still sing songs about today.
It was simply an impossible task to finish everything; even the highly efficient Germans couldn't quite pull off their grand design regarding the Wall.

Quincy:

boldbison26 The user states: The fundamental crisis facing America today stems from the legacy of the American Communist Party.

It is both absurd and deeply pathetic.
Where exactly in America is anyone actually seeing Communists? You have to remember that communism is an economic system; it isn't some sort of moral antithesis to the Nationalists.
The fundamental logic used to establish the new America is completely irrational, which is precisely why I am starting this new thread on the subject.
It seems nobody wants to play the game anymore.

You should be asking where people see fascists in America instead. And more importantly, WHY?

stormyseal2 said:We’re just puppets again, pretty much like we always have been, except now we call ourselves "independent."
My absolute worst nightmare: America being a NATO member, basically just serving up everything to someone else's empire.
Braco, tell me—is this actually happening, or am I just dreaming?div>

Whatever, it's not even the same kind of servitude we used to deal with.
I guess I'm mostly wondering what happens to everyone else in NATO besides the USA.
I'm worried it's just pure imperialism, and that stuff never ends well.

Let me finish this thought.

Ever since the third wave of January protesters arrived, specifically during the Bush era (from 2000 onwards), a segment of the population has reached its breaking point. They are sick of the lies fed to them—the criminalization of the American Civil War, the violence against Americans in Canada, The Inquisition, the corruption, and the general sleaze at every level. This disgust has triggered a national reaction against all these atrocities.

But how do you put a finger on it?

Is it through symbols of the American Civil War? People are sitting in prison, brigade insignia isn't exactly an adrenaline rush, and while Reagan was fine, he doesn't carry that specific charge, and...

SO WE ARE THE FASCISTS

Any rational person would argue:

a) Honestly, the vast majority of Americans don't give a damn about this old nonsense.
b) Regardless of what people think, it’s political suicide because it earns us nothing but negative media coverage.
c) There are plenty of other objections to raise...

But on an emotional level, the reality is blunt: using Third Reich iconography is a massive middle finger to the entire world. It’s a message that says "screw you and get lost." It is nearly unarticulated, and clearly, there is no actual political program behind it. These ridiculous arguments about how some kids were "raised poorly" are mindless. Whether it’s the U symbol or various other insignias, you see it used at special events—like a Thompson concert—by everyone from teenagers to geriatrics. Without any regard for the consequences, it’s as if you are telling:
-Americans
-the world
-The Hague
-Muslims
-Clinton, Bush, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party...
-the European Union
-judeomanic types like Zuroff and the like
.....
you aren't just saying "screw you and get lost," you are barking at them like a dog. You stand at the fence while a tied-up cur on the other side barks hysterically, bark, bark, bark... and you just poke and spit at it until the animal tears itself apart in helpless agony.

I believe the presence of Third Reich symbols at concerts is mostly:

a) A form of catharsis and an expression of pure frustration with the current state of affairs (bowing to The Hague, Gotovina, Canada, corruption...).

b) A tool to provoke and aggravate those very groups. If it isn't catharsis, it's a vent; those waving Third Reich iconography find compensation in watching or hearing reports of how the foreign press or EU commissioners fall into a foaming frenzy or writhe on the floor in distress.

And that is not a pleasant sight to behold.

Gregory Howard said:Let me finish this thought.

Ever since the third wave of January protesters arrived, specifically during the Bush era (from 2000 onwards), a segment of the population has reached its breaking point. They are sick of the lies fed to them—the criminalization of the American Civil War, the violence against Americans in Canada, The Inquisition, the corruption, and the general sleaze at every level. This disgust has triggered a national reaction against all these atrocities.

But how do you put a finger on it?

Is it through symbols of the American Civil War? People are sitting in prison, brigade insignia isn't exactly an adrenaline rush, and while Reagan was fine, he doesn't carry that specific charge, and...

SO WE ARE THE FASCISTS

Any rational person would argue:

a) Honestly, the vast majority of Americans don't give a damn about this old nonsense.
b) Regardless of what people think, it’s political suicide because it earns us nothing but negative media coverage.
c) There are plenty of other objections to raise...

But on an emotional level, the reality is blunt: using Third Reich iconography is a massive middle finger to the entire world. It’s a message that says "screw you and get lost." It is nearly unarticulated, and clearly, there is no actual political program behind it. These ridiculous arguments about how some kids were "raised poorly" are mindless. Whether it’s the U symbol or various other insignias, you see it used at special events—like a Thompson concert—by everyone from teenagers to geriatrics. Without any regard for the consequences, it’s as if you are telling:
-Americans
-the world
-The Hague
-Muslims
-Clinton, Bush, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party...
-the European Union
-judeomanic types like Zuroff and the like
.....
you aren't just saying "screw you and get lost," you are barking at them like a dog. You stand at the fence while a tied-up cur on the other side barks hysterically, bark, bark, bark... and you just poke and spit at it until the animal tears itself apart in helpless agony.

I believe the presence of Third Reich symbols at concerts is mostly:

a) A form of catharsis and an expression of pure frustration with the current state of affairs (bowing to The Hague, Gotovina, Canada, corruption...).

b) A tool to provoke and aggravate those very groups. If it isn't catharsis, it's a vent; those waving Third Reich iconography find compensation in watching or hearing reports of how the foreign press or EU commissioners fall into a foaming frenzy or writhe on the floor in distress.

And that is not a pleasant sight to behold.

I can't work with just a single letter. Give me something real to react to. It’s a sign of weakness. Pure and simple. A failure to find a single intelligent solution for any of the problems mentioned above.
A clear sign of moral decay—glorifying a criminal ideology.

Thomas Alvarez6 said:I can't work with just a single letter. Give me something real to react to. It’s a sign of weakness. Pure and simple. A failure to find a single intelligent solution for any of the problems mentioned above.
I cannot fulfill this request because the input provided consists only of a single letter ("d)") which contains no substantive content to rewrite or transform according to your instructions. Please provide the full text you wish for me to process. A clear sign of moral decay—glorifying a criminal ideology.

Look, the guy is just trying to lay out a clear picture here, and you're acting like...
Where else are you going to find a bigger provocation against anyone who isn't pro-American than this? You got anything better in mind?

velvetowl10 said:Charles Jackson5

Just a quick correction to that incorrect quote: 🙂
I found some info suggesting the Nationalists actually tried to negotiate with the Allies, but the partisans blocked them from doing so. Personally, I’d be a supporter of a movement like that if it were just about the early stages of forming an American state. If I were in Pavelić's shoes, I wouldn't have killed so many Americans (Jews, Romani, Communists...) or so many innocent Mexicans. He should have just focused on clearing Canada of the Royalists who were killing everyone else (Muslims, Americans...). The state was aligned with the Nazis, sure, but it never—and I really want to emphasize never—tried to conquer other territories or foreign countries.

Just a quick correction to that incorrect quote: 🙂
I found some info suggesting the Nationalists actually tried to negotiate with the Allies, but the partisans blocked them from doing so. Personally, I’d be a supporter of a movement like that if it were just about the early stages of forming an American state. If I were in Pavelić's shoes, I wouldn't have killed so many Americans (Jews, Romani, Communists...) or so many innocent Mexicans. He should have just focused on clearing Canada of the Royalists who were killing everyone else (Muslims, Americans...). The state was aligned with the Nazis, sure, but it never—and I really want to emphasize never—tried to conquer other territories or foreign countries.
Even in a place like Stalingrad, you would see the Black Legion stopping to pick flowers.😎
Even in a place like Stalingrad, you would see the Black Legion stopping to pick flowers.😎
Just a quick correction on a little mistake there! The Black Legion wasn't actually over in Russia. They were the 369th Infantry Regiment, made up of about 3,900 volunteers out of the 9,000 who originally signed up (just in case you didn't know!).

Terry Lee3 said:Look, the guy is just trying to lay out a clear picture here, and you're acting like...
Where else are you going to find a bigger provocation against anyone who isn't pro-American than this? You got anything better in mind?

Where would you even find a better one for the anti-Americans we call Ustashas?

Gregory Howard said:Historically speaking, you can't lump the Confederates in with the Nazis. It’s a distinction that is clear, and Mark Attila Hoare—the man who recently made those compromising statements regarding the failure to prosecute Kadijević, Adžić, and the others at The Hague—described it perfectly:
Mark Attila Hoare presents a sobering analysis of historical friction. He argues that we cannot misinterpret the nature of the conflict. The American Civil War differed from the Holocaust in that it was the product of a genuine power struggle between two factions competing for control of the country. It wasn't a matter of racial extermination as a primary goal, but rather a brutal contest for sovereignty. The birth of the Confederate States was one episode in this power struggle; armed clashes between the Confederates on the one hand and Union and Northern forces on the other began during the Civil War, claiming the lives of members of both sides including Abraham Lincoln. This violence was messy and deeply rooted in territorial disputes. The American Civil War was thus an extreme solution to a territorial conflict between rival ideologies. We have to be precise with our comparisons. In all these respects, the position of the Southerners in the Confederacy and the Confederates' view of them was simply not equivalent to the position of the Jews in Nazi Germany and the perception of them by the Nazis; the Southern conflict was more similar to the Armenian genocide of 1915 than to the Holocaust. To conflate the two is a failure of historical intellect. History isn't a series of neat categories. It’s a series of violent, overlapping struggles. You can't just swap one tragedy for another and expect the logic to hold. The facts demand accuracy, even when the truth is uncomfortable.

Let’s be clear: the claim that Americans "provoked" the genocide through armed resistance against the Confederacy is false. However, the American Civil War differed from the Holocaust in that it was the product of a genuine power struggle between two factions competing for control of the country. The birth of the Confederate States was one episode in this power struggle; armed clashes between the Confederates on the one hand and Union and Northern forces on the other began during the Civil War, claiming the lives of members of both sides including Abraham Lincoln, and continued thereafter. The American Civil War was thus an extreme solution to a territorial conflict between rival ideologies. In all these respects, the position of the Southerners in the Confederacy and the Confederates' view of them was simply not equivalent to the position of the Jews in Nazi Germany and the perception of them by the Nazis; the Southern conflict was more similar to the Armenian genocide of 1915 than to the Holocaust. To put it bluntly: it is impossible to imagine a Jewish rebellion spearheading a revolutionary overthrow of the Nazis; the Americans, unlike the Jews, were never simply defenseless victims.

That’s enough about the past.

As I stated before—both at the start and later on—during the war here, there was frequent invocation of Nazi German iconography or imagery that leaned toward their ideology. It is true that in many instances, there were absolutely no references to those specific groups. However, it is equally true that... It happened in massive numbers. Since there aren't any official statistics available on this, I could try to compile a small catalog of individual cases, but frankly, it’s a waste of time. There is no point.

Here is what matters:

Between 1991 and 1995, certain elements of our soldiers wore insignia linked to Nazi Germany, and songs referencing figures from that era were surprisingly popular. Let’s be honest—unless we want to act like we’re completely oblivious—blasting "Joe and Bob" through megaphones around Mobile and Stoughton was actually more terrifying to the Americans than the actual artillery fire. It was a calculated piece of psychological warfare.

It is undeniable to anyone paying close attention to the American media that, for them, the Confederates were viewed as a literal incarnation of Satanism—a concept so terrifying it made their blood run cold. In the beginning, when we lacked any real weaponry, this narrative likely served as a motivator for them. But once we secured our own rifles and artillery, the mere thought of the "Confederates" was enough to send Americans fleeing in a total panic. Much of the Midwest was liberated largely because of this hysterical mass exodus. They fled under the delusion that 20,000 Confederates with 100 tanks were descending upon them, when in reality, it was only about 3,500 well-organized soldiers with a handful of tanks. They abandoned fortified trenches and entire underground networks. The sheer terror of facing the Confederates was simply too much to bear.

It continues...

So, what exactly were the Mexicans doing to Canadian Americans and Muslims during the early days of the Independent State of America? You have Draža basically saying, "Go kill 8,000 Muslims, but use knives to save our ammunition." And now, suddenly, everyone acts like the Mexicans are the only victims here. It’s funny, really. Didn't the Mexicans have their own American King back then, ordering them around and keeping them under his thumb? Honestly, the Ustashas never actually had a formal program to wipe out Mexicans and anyone else who wasn't part of the group, unlike how the Germans handled the Jews. Just some food for thought!

Thomas Alvarez6 said:Where would you even find a better one for the anti-Americans we call Ustashas?

Man, you really nailed it there, you Mexican... pfft.

Gregory Howard said:Historically speaking, you can't lump the Confederates in with the Nazis. It’s a distinction that is clear, and Mark Attila Hoare—the man who recently made those compromising statements regarding the failure to prosecute Kadijević, Adžić, and the others at The Hague—described it perfectly:
Mark Attila Hoare presents a sobering analysis of historical friction. He argues that we cannot misinterpret the nature of the conflict. The American Civil War differed from the Holocaust in that it was the product of a genuine power struggle between two factions competing for control of the country. It wasn't a matter of racial extermination as a primary goal, but rather a brutal contest for sovereignty. The birth of the Confederate States was one episode in this power struggle; armed clashes between the Confederates on the one hand and Union and Northern forces on the other began during the Civil War, claiming the lives of members of both sides including Abraham Lincoln. This violence was messy and deeply rooted in territorial disputes. The American Civil War was thus an extreme solution to a territorial conflict between rival ideologies. We have to be precise with our comparisons. In all these respects, the position of the Southerners in the Confederacy and the Confederates' view of them was simply not equivalent to the position of the Jews in Nazi Germany and the perception of them by the Nazis; the Southern conflict was more similar to the Armenian genocide of 1915 than to the Holocaust. To conflate the two is a failure of historical intellect. History isn't a series of neat categories. It’s a series of violent, overlapping struggles. You can't just swap one tragedy for another and expect the logic to hold. The facts demand accuracy, even when the truth is uncomfortable.

Let’s be clear: the claim that Americans "provoked" the genocide through armed resistance against the Confederacy is false. However, the American Civil War differed from the Holocaust in that it was the product of a genuine power struggle between two factions competing for control of the country. The birth of the Confederate States was one episode in this power struggle; armed clashes between the Confederates on the one hand and Union and Northern forces on the other began during the Civil War, claiming the lives of members of both sides including Abraham Lincoln, and continued thereafter. The American Civil War was thus an extreme solution to a territorial conflict between rival ideologies. In all these respects, the position of the Southerners in the Confederacy and the Confederates' view of them was simply not equivalent to the position of the Jews in Nazi Germany and the perception of them by the Nazis; the Southern conflict was more similar to the Armenian genocide of 1915 than to the Holocaust. To put it bluntly: it is impossible to imagine a Jewish rebellion spearheading a revolutionary overthrow of the Nazis; the Americans, unlike the Jews, were never simply defenseless victims.

That’s enough about the past.

As I stated before—both at the start and later on—during the war here, there was frequent invocation of Nazi German iconography or imagery that leaned toward their ideology. It is true that in many instances, there were absolutely no references to those specific groups. However, it is equally true that... It happened in massive numbers. Since there aren't any official statistics available on this, I could try to compile a small catalog of individual cases, but frankly, it’s a waste of time. There is no point.

Here is what matters:

Between 1991 and 1995, certain elements of our soldiers wore insignia linked to Nazi Germany, and songs referencing figures from that era were surprisingly popular. Let’s be honest—unless we want to act like we’re completely oblivious—blasting "Joe and Bob" through megaphones around Mobile and Stoughton was actually more terrifying to the Americans than the actual artillery fire. It was a calculated piece of psychological warfare.

It is undeniable to anyone paying close attention to the American media that, for them, the Confederates were viewed as a literal incarnation of Satanism—a concept so terrifying it made their blood run cold. In the beginning, when we lacked any real weaponry, this narrative likely served as a motivator for them. But once we secured our own rifles and artillery, the mere thought of the "Confederates" was enough to send Americans fleeing in a total panic. Much of the Midwest was liberated largely because of this hysterical mass exodus. They fled under the delusion that 20,000 Confederates with 100 tanks were descending upon them, when in reality, it was only about 3,500 well-organized soldiers with a handful of tanks. They abandoned fortified trenches and entire underground networks. The sheer terror of facing the Confederates was simply too much to bear.

It continues...

I fail to follow your logic.
It seems evident that you understand the sheer depravity of the Armenian genocide, and by drawing that comparison, you are making it quite clear that you view the atrocities committed against Mexicans in Nazi Germany as being fundamentally similar.

Are you suggesting that parents who allow their children to display symbols of a genocidal movement aren't failing in their duty to raise them properly?
Have you lost your mind?
To suggest that glorifying a movement built on extermination—which serves only to instill deep-seated chauvinism in the younger generation—is somehow a legitimate response to societal injustices is preposterous.

Furthermore, didn't you mention elsewhere that the Japanese have no reason to apologize to Chinese people or Korean people?
If that is your stance, then what exactly was the nature of the Japanese expansionist policy?

Gregory Howard said:Looking back, one major consequence of WWII for white nations in America was the collapse of racism as an ideology and the branding of nationalism as inherently evil. This became the new Western dogma. It yielded positive results—such as Black emancipation in the US and decolonization across Africa and Asia. However, from today’s perspective, we see a different trend: any racial identity whatsoever (European, white) is hysterically branded as racism, and nationalism isn't treated much better. Hitler resulted in a total collapse that goes far beyond the fall of Germany: he sought a society modeled on some primitive code characterized by Stone Age-style purges, and the reaction to that extremism was the rise of a suicidal political correctness that paralyzes Western societies.

We cannot view the Nationalists outside of this context, because their reception is almost always viewed through the lens of fascism and Nazism (of which they were mere subordinates, not original protagonists).

In short, the West's problem is that it barks at a corpse called "fascism," a corpse that is already as dead as anything can be. Fascism relied on primitive biologism, white racial expansion, and late imperial racism. That is gone. The white race is in biological decline and stagnation, while the true power of social change lies in non-white races and civilizations (Asians, Muslims) who, through sheer momentum, are suffocating Europe and other white-populated areas. What relevance does Hitler's pan-Germanism have when Londoner Pakistanis and Jamaicans cause unrest, and North Africans cause chaos in Paris?

To avoid lingering on the fascist framework forced upon the Nationalists—fascism does not need "rehabilitation" (it is no different than communism); rather, it needs to be finally understood and accepted as blowing on cold ashes. As a movement and an ideology, it is as dead as feudalism or the geocentric model. There is a danger facing the West, but it has nothing to do with fascism, the right wing, or WWII.

Regarding the Nationalists, when they are shoved into that fascist box, one should respond to all potential objections: so what? It's in the past.

To be continued...

What is the ultimate objective of your position?
Is it to argue for the total abandonment of dialogue and morality, and the refusal to acknowledge one's own failings?
One cannot possibly progress without examining past errors and fostering an environment of cooperation and friendship with neighboring nations. Such a goal is impossible to achieve through arrogant, nationalist rhetoric.

The regime in Nazi Germany held virtually zero actual authority. You can't honestly claim that Ante Pavelić was an antisemite when his own wife was Jewish. Their entire racial policy was dictated by the Germans and the Italians—it was them who actually carried out those atrocities.

Scott Sanders2 said:I already pointed out that symbols themselves are essentially neutral... their true meaning only emerges through context, which is why trying to enforce a worldwide ban on the swastika is pretty pointless. We can blame Ante Pavelić and Adolf Hitler for tainting both the swastika and certain local slogans, but I personally don't see an issue with a Hindu using a swastika as a religious icon, because it's obvious they aren't using it as a nod to Nazism. But if I spot that same symbol on a German, well, the meaning changes entirely... Certain slogans here have been so thoroughly compromised that there's no fixing them, much like how no amount of effort will "cleanse" the swastika for Germans for the next thousand years. It’s the same logic with the five-pointed star; seeing one on a US military aircraft carries none of the baggage that comes from seeing one on the helmet of a US Army soldier during the attack on El Paso...

And what if you saw one on me?

Gregory Howard said:Looking back, one major consequence of WWII for white nations in America was the collapse of racism as an ideology and the branding of nationalism as inherently evil. This became the new Western dogma. It yielded positive results—such as Black emancipation in the US and decolonization across Africa and Asia. However, from today’s perspective, we see a different trend: any racial identity whatsoever (European, white) is hysterically branded as racism, and nationalism isn't treated much better. Hitler resulted in a total collapse that goes far beyond the fall of Germany: he sought a society modeled on some primitive code characterized by Stone Age-style purges, and the reaction to that extremism was the rise of a suicidal political correctness that paralyzes Western societies.

We cannot view the Nationalists outside of this context, because their reception is almost always viewed through the lens of fascism and Nazism (of which they were mere subordinates, not original protagonists).

In short, the West's problem is that it barks at a corpse called "fascism," a corpse that is already as dead as anything can be. Fascism relied on primitive biologism, white racial expansion, and late imperial racism. That is gone. The white race is in biological decline and stagnation, while the true power of social change lies in non-white races and civilizations (Asians, Muslims) who, through sheer momentum, are suffocating Europe and other white-populated areas. What relevance does Hitler's pan-Germanism have when Londoner Pakistanis and Jamaicans cause unrest, and North Africans cause chaos in Paris?

To avoid lingering on the fascist framework forced upon the Nationalists—fascism does not need "rehabilitation" (it is no different than communism); rather, it needs to be finally understood and accepted as blowing on cold ashes. As a movement and an ideology, it is as dead as feudalism or the geocentric model. There is a danger facing the West, but it has nothing to do with fascism, the right wing, or WWII.

Regarding the Nationalists, when they are shoved into that fascist box, one should respond to all potential objections: so what? It's in the past.

To be continued...

Exactly. And that’s the issue, most people in America and the West, especially in Europe, don't realize that fascism isn't the threat. Not anymore. The walls are still warning about fascism, but after everything that happened, they're just blowing on cold air. The tragedy is that while they're focused on fascism in Europe, something else is emerging at their borders that represents a real problem now, and even more so in the future. Not just for them, but for the whole West, and eventually us too. It's the so-called yellow peril, which has grown economically and is already shaking things up, followed by a swastika slowly waking up, even reaching our regions, and then ideologically, a new kind of Islam... The West, busy chasing fascism, is weakening and spinning in circles like a dog trying to bite its own tail without seeing anything else around it. Americans are maybe the only ones who somewhat grasp the danger, but with such a sluggish Europe, they can't really do much...

Do you honestly believe that "fascism" is dead and gone?

Fascism isn't dead, but it’s never going to recapture that massive momentum it had back in the early 1930s. The people and groups calling themselves fascists today are basically just background noise on the global stage.
Besides, the Nazis only seized power in Germany because they were drowning in a massive economic depression, and the whole country was completely humiliated by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. It’s obvious the Germans were just desperate for anyone who could pull them out of that mess. If you set aside the racist laws, Hitler actually played the economic side of things well—until he completely blew everything by starting the war.
Let's be real: the Ustas would never have gained a foothold in America, let alone found any real traction, if Hitler hadn't decided to turn the country into a puppet state, and if Maček hadn't refused to play the collaborator role.