Hitler's view of America

Yes some critics did, and other critics labeled it a socialist economy, while still other critics called it communism.

 

Again that's a rather flawed argument. For one thing Corporatism under Il Duce was quite a bit different than it is under our current economy isn't it? Furthermore it's probably a misnomer to label the Nazi's as fascist. When all you look at is commonalities and don't look at the differences as well you are almost guaranteed to reach very questionable conclusions. Your understanding may be "fine" but it appears very superficial.

 

I doubt Marx or Hitler would have considered it socialist though. Nor would Lenin or Stalin consider it communist, or Il Duce or Franco fascist. The controls also appear to me to be a lot lighter than those exercised by any of the above. Still waiting for a credible argument from GunSlinger.

 

I do not wish to side-track this thread too far, but I feel I need to reply.

When the USA became independent most of the British became Americans. For me it does not make much difference what the official citizenship was, when the people/their parents/grand-parents remained the same.

About the scalp money:

"On July 4, 1863, in response to raids by Dakota in southern Minnesota, the state’s Adjutant-General, Oscar Malmros, issued a general order for the establishment of a mounted corps of “volunteer scouts” to patrol from Sauk Centre to the northern edge of Sibley County. The scouts provided their own arms, equipment, and provisions, were each paid two dollars a day, and were offered an additional $25 for Dakota scalps. A reward of $75 a scalp was offered to people not in military service; that amount was raised to $200 on September 22. Period newspapers described the taking of many scalps. - See more at:"
http://www.usdakotawar.org/history/aftermath/bounties#sthash.iV4HR52U.dpuf
http://www.usdakotawar.org/history/aftermath/bounties

When entire villages were murdered - men, women, children - and entire tribes were to get rid of - either by killing or ousting them - I call it genocide - although not in the grandest possible scale.

 

So the fact that it took place under a different government in a different country doesn't make much difference to you? What does then?

As for scalps I never claimed it didn't happen but it was common practice on all sides. If you look at the official defnitions of genocide I think you'll find this doesn't qualify. Using well defined words to mean something else especially to make a political point is something I find rather reprehensible. Oh and what "entire tribes were to get rid of"?

 

Danger, danger!!!

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide
I always enjoy how these threads bring out the "old white guy" apologists.
Patriotism is a dirty word...always has been.
Yes it was genocide.....ask any Native American...unless you think You Know Better.
We frequently slaughtered their women and children...almost completely (in conjunction with the railroads), to the last animal, destroyed the buffalo so they would either starve to death or agree to be shuttled to reservations where we further abused them with rotten food, barren waste land (unless we drilled for oil and moved them somewhere worse), often forbade them to speak their own language, and practice their religion. Wounded Knee was just one small example.
All winners try to justify their cowardice. There is not One Single Person on this forum that would not have been a Patriotic German Soldier if he had been born in Germany at that time.
It continues to this day. Armies invade other peoples countries, and then Vilify the people that Live There when they fight back with any weapon at their disposal.....just like the French did when Germany invaded in 1940.
BTW.....the "Indians" did not invade White Europe...White Europe via France, Spain, England et al invaded The Indians Country.
Columbus was a genocidal predictor..... or in case you forgot, the history books show it really happened.
Let the native peoples atone for their own history's sins.....Start With Your Own.
Take a Poli-Sci class at your local college.
As the natives were want to say....... tiocfaidh ár lá
Have A Good Day

 

On Earth Day, 1971, nonprofit organization Keep America Beautiful launched what the Ad Council would later call one of the “50 greatest commercials of all time.” Dubbed “The Crying Indian,” the one-minute PSA features a Native American man paddling down a junk-infested river, surrounded by smog, pollution, and trash; as he hauls his canoe onto the plastic-infested shore, a bag of rubbish is tossed from a car window, exploding at his feet. The camera then pans to the Indian’s cheerless face just as a single tear rolls down his cheek.
The ad, which sought to combat pollution, was widely successful: It secured two Clio awards, incited a frenzy of community involvement, and helped reduce litter by 88% across 38 states. Its star performer, a man who went by the name “Iron Eyes Cody,” subsequently became the “face of Native Indians,” and was honored with a star on Hollywood’s Walk of Fame. Advertisers estimate that his face, plastered on billboards, posters, and magazine ads, has been viewed 14 billion times, easily making him the most recognizable Native American figure of the century.
But while Hollywood trumpeted Iron Eyes Cody as a “true Native American” and profited from his ubiquitous image, the man himself harbored an unspoken secret: he was 100% Italian.

The complete article @: Iron Eyes Cody

 

the NAs did the same as the Europeans.....they displaced, destroyed, and wiped out other tribes long before the ''evil'' whites were there.....no difference...we had a thread on this

http://www.ww2f.com/topic/54968-manifest-destiny-segregation-and-lebensraum/page-3

posts #63 and 67

 

Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong.
To make such universal proclamations about something such as "patriotism" or the nature of your opposition shows a closed mind that cares little for truth, fact, or logic.

It was not by the accepted definition of the term "genocide". Certainly there were individuals that wished it were so but it was never official US policy. Killing innocents is deploreable but then it took place on both sides didn't it? Nor does that make it genocide. I certainly wasn't part of this "we" you speak of nor was anyone else on this board or for that matter I doubt you were either.

Many of your other opinions are similarly flawed and none are supported by fact and logic that I can see.

Certainly comments like "Columbus was a genocidal predictor" show not only a lack of rationality but coherence as well.

 

That incident happened in Pittsburgh by the British. (Most of) The British of Pittsburgh soon became the Americans of the USA. For me that indeed does not make much difference - same country, (almost the) same people. Your escaping to hair-splitting of the official citizenship seems rather petty to me.

"Spreading disease was not always intentional on the part of the colonists. But there were a few instances that confirm Europeans’ attempt to exterminate natives. In 1763, a particularly serious uprising threatened British garrisons in Pennsylvania. Worried about limited resources, and driven by atrocities committed by some Native Americans , Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander-in-chief of British forces in North America, wrote to Colonel Henry Bouquet at Fort Pitt:

“You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians [with smallpox] by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method, that can serve to extirpate this execrable race.”

Consequently, settlers spread smallpox to the Native Americans by distributing blankets previously owned by contagious patients."

"Colonists were paid for each Penobscot Native they killed – fifty pounds for adult male scalps, twenty-five for adult female scalps, and twenty for scalps of boys and girls under age twelve. These proclamations explicitly display the settlers’ “intent to kill”, a major indicator of genocidal acts."

"As the United States expanded westward, violent conflicts over territory multiplied. In 1784, one British traveler noted:

“White Americans have the most rancorous antipathy to the whole race of Indians; and nothing is more common than to hear them talk of extirpating them totally from the face of the earth, men, women, and children.” "


"Further, in 1850, the California state government passed the Act for the Government and Protection of Indians that addressed the punishment and protection of Native Americans, and helped to facilitate the removal of their culture and land. It also legalized slavery and was referenced for the buying and selling of Native children.

“A war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race becomes extinct.”
– California Governor Peter H. Burnett, 1851 ""

http://endgenocide.org/learn/past-genocides/native-americans/

 

It was not the same people or the same country. Note please that none of that was official policy of the US government. PLS note also that in at least some cases it was a matter of retaliation for like behavior on the part of Indians. Indeed in some tribes it was taken as a sign of valor if one brought back the scalps of children or women because it indicated that one had entered deep into hostile territory rather than picking off a stray on the edge of or out of their territory. By refusing to acknowledge the very real differences between organizations and looking at only one side of the issue you have arrived at a false conclusion.

I also find it interesting that you claim you didn't want to divert this thread yet you posted irrelevant and fallacious material that was essentially guaranteed to and you continue to post such information. The US government simply put had the capability of conducting a successful genocide campaign vs the American Indians in it's territory certainly by the 1850s if not earlier. The fact that there are existent Indian tribes illustrate that no such campaign was prosecuted by the US government. As I stated earlier that doesn't mean that some individuals did not want to see such a campaign and in some cases they did much to try and bring it about. That's not the same however as the US government actively persueing such a campaign and blaming it on the US government for the actions of a British official and a few British officers is truly a distortion of history.

 

It would be funny, if it were not so completely pathetic, how white "Americans" try to justify The Holocausts of their own history.
There are still Jews in The World.....therefore there was no Genocide/Holocaust on part of The Nazis.?
Why and Who do you think was hired to Kill Off all the buffalo.?
In The South, we had the most peculiar, and evil preponderance of slavery that has yet been seen.
It is no wonder that the rest of The World hates The USA so much, as we propagate our same Colonial History history on the rest of the globe.
If you are Caucasian, and you live in The USA.....YOUR HISTORY... starting with Columbus, is one of Thieving/Murdering/Slave Merchants. Learn to admit it and live with it.
THAT is one HUGE difference between Europe and The States. If you were German, you would have grown up with Volumes of Pictures and Text documenting your countries atrocities. No so in The USA. As can be seen form this thread. White America want to blame The Indians, because "They Killed and Murdered Too"...didn't they.?. Well genius.....what would you do if people invaded your country and tried to run YOU to ground.? Say somebody flew a plane into one of your precious skyscrapers in NYC.? Would that piss you off.? Would you want to retaliate.? Now you have known for 10 seconds what The Native Peoples have known since 1492.
Perhaps start by reading .....A Peoples History Of The United States.

Via The GI Bill and FHA loans...returning White Soldiers from WWII were recipients of this Countries Biggest Affirmative Action Program.
If you do not see White Privilege, that means you have it.
Pleasant Dreams

 

A rather different situation though isn't it? How many Jews would have been left in Germany if the Nazis had been in control for even another 10 years much less 40 or 50? Certainly there were actions against the Indians that cannot be morally justified in any way. But the Indians also took such actions against both whites and other Indians.

What makes you think that slavery in the south was "the most peculiar and evil preponderance of slavery that has yet been seen"? I'd like to see some sources on that.

I'd also like to see some sources on just how much the rest of the world "hates the USA". Indeed we are not well liked in some places but are very well thought of in others. PLS note how many people try to come to the US from all over the globe. Kind of brings your ranting opinions to question doesn't it.

Your assumptions as to who owns history also appear to be founded in your belief system and are not consistent with fact and logic. You also are only looking at one side of the issue (and it is arguably a very multisided issue). For instance slavery was terminated in the US at the cost of many white lives. The history of the US (and it's our history no matter the color of ones skin) is one of both slavery and freedom, thievery and charity, etc.

You illustrate an inability to understand both history and the discussion taking place with your comments. Are the Indians to blame? Some of them are to some extent as are the French, English, Spanish, Portuguese, and the various countries that formed from their former colonies. Atrocities were committed on all sides and begat further atrocities but there were also efforts to live in harmony and to help each other. Greed often won out but it wasn't like there was no contest. Likewise no one is saying "White Privilege" doesn't exist or at least didn't exist but that's hardly what we were talking about is it? As for the GI Bill and FHA loans again those weren't the topic of discussion so why bring them up (although it is worth noting that nonwhites benefited from them as well although not to the extent whites did). Again no one is claiming that discrimination didn't exist but that's a long way from genocide.

Indeed your whole post fails to address the topic under discussion almost completely and is a rather emotional afactual and illogical denunciation of the US filled with straw men and diversions.

Rant away if you wish but you won't convince most of us without fact and logic and your position is simply not supportable by those. If you wish to post such gibberish pls consider a separate thread and don't pollute this one with it.

 

The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid or occasionally Europid) is a taxon historically used to describe the physical or biological type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia and South Asia. The term has been used in biological anthropology for many people from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone. First introduced in early racial science and anthropometry, the taxon has historically been used to denote one of the three proposed major races (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid) of humankind. Although its validity and utility are disputed by many anthropologists, Caucasoid as a biological classification remains in use, particularly within the field of forensic anthropology.
-Wikipedia

​Like it or not, it is a term that has been used in that context, and to some degree still is.

 

Ah. There's mud on my face!