Who thinks nazi's are awesome?

[Shade]

Killing another in a war is not murder? I say it is, for the aggressor.

I was just giving a quick example, but if we must be nitpicky. It depends on the justification behind the war, if you are attacked by another country for little reason other than them wanting your land, you would not be wrong to defend yourself and kill the enemy. However, I would not say that the aggressor is always wrong, it again depends on whether or not the war is justified

[Shadow]

Killing another in a war is not murder? I say it is, for the aggressor.

I was just giving a quick example, but if we must be nitpicky. It depends on the justification behind the war, if you are attacked by another country for little reason other than them wanting your land, you would not be wrong to defend yourself and kill the enemy. However, I would not say that the aggressor is always wrong, it again depends on whether or not the war is justified

That leaves a massive amount of grey area. What constitutes a justified war?

[Shade]

Feel free to unblock me on msn if you want to discuss it, we're dragging the thread off topic

[Shadow]

No thank you. I will make a thread in ultra moderated discussion for it.

[kell]

The civilians would not have given in peacefully, they'd have armed themselves and fought against the Allied forces...  Thus why the estimated death toll was so high for Operation Downfall.  At what point is a civilian no longer a civilian? 

Now, two clarification points...
-Are you seriously comparing the selective annihilation of a group of people over many years to the act of dropping a single bomb on a city selected neigh at random? (weather conditions being the main determining factor)
-While remembering this is a war, are you saying that you'd rather millions of Allied troops and tens of millions of Japanese Civilians die rather than taking out two cities with single blows?

a civilian remains a civilian as long as he/she takes no part in military action, and yes I would rather see millions of allied troops die then civilians, a trooper accepts his professions and the ricks that go with it a baker, teacher, shop owner does not accept death for doing their job. as for the warning, I'm sure you as most locigal people wouldn't accept enemy propaganda as fact.
And aside from what the Nazi's did to the Jewish people, the US, British and Russians have their own crimes to pay for, Dersan, the dropping of atomic bombs, the countless German troops shot on surrendering these are war crimes but of course the victor in war is never charged........

[windhound]

^  one word:  Draft.

[Gen. Volkov]

a civilian remains a civilian as long as he/she takes no part in military action, and yes I would rather see millions of allied troops die then civilians, a trooper accepts his professions and the ricks that go with it a baker, teacher, shop owner does not accept death for doing their job. as for the warning, I'm sure you as most locigal people wouldn't accept enemy propaganda as fact.
And aside from what the Nazi's did to the Jewish people, the US, British and Russians have their own crimes to pay for, Dersan, the dropping of atomic bombs, the countless German troops shot on surrendering these are war crimes but of course the victor in war is never charged........

Kell, don't be silly. If the Japanese Home Islands had been invaded, it would have been slaughter for everyone involved. Millions of allied casualties, millions of Japanese casualties, and tens of millions of Japanese civilian casualties. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima shortened the war and saved tens of millions of lives. Were the allies nice people? No, they sure weren't, the burning out of the Ruhr and Dresden certainly shows that. But they were certainly a lot nicer than the Germans and Japanese. You just have to look at the differences in POW treatment to see that, along with the Holocaust in the case of the Nazi's.

BTW, most if not all surrendering German troops were not shot by the Western allies, that is more of a Russian thing, given their anger at over 20 million Russian casualties when the Nazi's invaded Russia. Hitler ordered entire towns burnt to the ground and every inhabitant killed. Fully half the Russian casualties were civilians.

I love military history so in that respect the Germans are awesome, people talk of the Romans, Alex the great, Napoleon, but what the Nazi war machine achieved far out did any thing we have or ever will see again

Sorry, but no, the modern American Army is a far more effective fighting force than the German Army, it's just that the American Army has no aspirations for world domination. The prime factors in the success of the German Blitzkrieg in France are superior tactics, shock factor, and perhaps most importantly, radios. The Germans tanks were more mobile, but otherwise inferior in many ways to French tanks. But they had radios, and the French did not, which greatly increased command and control. German aircraft were essentially comparable to British aircraft of the time, it was mostly the pilots that gave them the edge. Honestly, for all the effectiveness of the German war machine, it was mostly tactics that allowed them to win. On a qualitative basis, they just weren't tremendously superior for much of the war. Near the end, yes, they created some wonders, like the Me-262 and the King Tiger, but not in time and never in enough quantity to significantly change the outcome of the war. The Tiger, Tiger 2, and Panther were better than almost any tank the allies built, but they were late war, and in small numbers. (Though I'd stick the M-26 Pershing up against any of those three, that too was a late war tank, American designed, and a real bruiser, it was the basis for all US tanks right up until the first Abrams rolled off the assembly line.)

But if you want to talk truly impressive accomplishments, you want to look at the Mongols. They created the largest continuous land empire in the history of the world, in essentially a single generation. At one point, the Mongol empire encompassed almost the entire land mass of Asia.

Nazi's achieved nothing but pain and death and econimically damaged there country even more.

No, actually, before the war, the German economy was booming. It was having their entire industrial infrastructure bombed out during the war that hurt their economy. But as Shadow said, after the war, they quickly rebuilt with US help, and became a very big player on the international scene.

Not necessarily - the Germans were in terrible shape before the war, and the lousy economy was tearing the country apart.

That was true until the mid to late 1930's. After that, the German economy started to boom as Hitler put everyone back to work, re-arming the country.

Oh and as for the Nazi's.. no, I don't like them, their accomplishments impress me, but I think the death toll was a little high. 6 million Jews and 50 million+ dead in WW2. BTW windy, the P-38 probably would have been invented anyway. The Mustang probably not though.

[kell]

"Sorry, but no, the modern American Army is a far more effective fighting force than the German Army, it's just that the American Army has no aspirations for world domination" (quote button isnt working)

How many times have the US used it armed forces to put a goverment in place or prop up a goverment? The US might not take entire control of these countries but they have MASSIVE control on it's policies creating a lot of US "friendly" nations.
As for effective vietman should the US with all their firepower can be beaten by a far weaker nation

[Death]

This thread is ridiculous.

Not every Nazi is racist in any way, you guys SHOULD know that. There are thousands of people called Nazis just because they are proud of who they are, even though they have nothing against any other race. Black people, Hispanics, all races do the same thing and nobody calls them racist, it's a load of bullshit.

I think racist Nazis are stupid, otherwise I have no problem. I have been friends with many in the past, and I'm sure I will be in the future.

[Peace Alliance]

I think you've been severely misinformed, Death. There are no happy-go-lucky Nazi's, and the mentality behind the original party and still to this day and current members is completely racist, evil and hateful.

There were some like the Nazi youth, or people who had no choice. But personally I believe anyone who's taking part in the slow annihilation of an entire race, whether by choice or not, has a LOT to repent for.

The last thing on EARTH that would make me change my mind is telling me that they have pride in what they do. Pride is one of the most destructive and evil things the world deals with. Pride was one of Hitlers main tools to coerce an entire nation into so much hateful deeds.

And for the most part, they weren't stupid either...

[Death]

So you're saying that every Nazi is an evil, racist, hateful person? You think every Nazi is trying to annihilate another race?

Right, well, you would get along well with the WWII vets. lol

[bjornredtail]

Although I have to dislike the mass murder of 12 million people, some part of me wants a Do-335. So, in short, Nazis == bad. Nazi WWII Tech == Awesome, at least for them. Thankfully they were not able to deliver large quantities of their advanced weapons... Or get the nuke for that matter.

[Peace Alliance]

So you're saying that every Nazi is an evil, racist, hateful person? You think every Nazi is trying to annihilate another race?

Right, well, you would get along well with the WWII vets. lol

Here's a well cited quote from wikipedia: "Nazism has come to stand for a belief in the superiority of an Aryan race, an abstraction of the Germanic peoples"

Well, I only glanced at the article, but thats a fairly quick definition of what a nazi is. They are based on a racist belief. If you have friends who are nice and happen to be nazi's. Then you have friends who are nice racists. I AM saying that nazi's are racist. It is true! As thats what a nazi is! An affiliation that brings together a group of people who are like mind in that area.

Your nazi friends might not be actively trying to annihilate another race. But by being nazi's, they are being racist. They are being ignorant, hateful and evil. Because thats what a nazi is. Maybe they just don't know what it is? You certainly don't.

You fill me with disappointment. I do believe me and most war vets would agree with that atm... Maybe you're just flapping your yap, who knows.

[Death]

That is if you go by exact original definition alone, which many people do not. I mean people call Homosexuals gay, this is much similar.

But yeah, I'm not interested in debating this, your opinion on people I used to be friends with matters as much to me as.. well anyone elses', next to nothing. :D

[Gen. Volkov]

Death, Hitler was a founding member of the National Socialist Party. He helped define what it was to be a Nazi, and part of that definition was racism. Not everything about the Nazi's was bad. They did make Germany a military power again, employ basically the whole population and revitalize the German economy. But the whole racism thing is an integral part of what it means to be a Nazi. Especially Anti-semitism, the founding force behind the Nazi party was hate for the Jewish population of Germany, and the belief that the Jews were the reason Germany both signed and was so severely punished by the Treaty of Versailles.

Not every Nazi is racist in any way, you guys SHOULD know that. There are thousands of people called Nazis just because they are proud of who they are, even though they have nothing against any other race. Black people, Hispanics, all races do the same thing and nobody calls them racist, it's a load of bullshit.

Actually I would consider many blacks and Hispanics racist as well, yes they are proud of who they are, but they also don't like other races much.

How many times have the US used it armed forces to put a goverment in place or prop up a goverment? The US might not take entire control of these countries but they have MASSIVE control on it's policies creating a lot of US "friendly" nations.
As for effective vietman should the US with all their firepower can be beaten by a far weaker nation

Yes, you have a point, but I would contend there is a large difference between outright military conquest, as with the Nazi's, and the occasional military support of a government friendly to our interests.

kell, you should know as well as I do that Vietnam is in no way representative of the modern American Army. For one thing, it was 40 years ago, and things change. For another, that was a primarily a conscript army, not a volunteer army like the US has today. Oh and one other thing: Vietnam was a weaker nation, but they received incredible amounts of assistance from a nation just as strong militarily as the US was at the time. Lastly, let's not forget that while we did withdraw from Vietnam, the Vietnamese never defeated the US in open battle, nor did the VietCong, who actually ceased to be a truly effective force after the Tet Offensive of 1968. We withdrew, but on our own terms. Even afterwards, if Congress had lived up to their promises of assistance should North Vietnam attack South Vietnam, it's not likely that South Vietnam would have fallen. It was the politicians who lost Vietnam, not the US military.