Mississippi
Here’s a link to the archive of the third debate with Jim Giles and Alex Linder.
Note: I turned the moderation queue off for the live thread. It was restored here when the debate was over. In the future, there will be no flaming or personal attacks on this blog, only substantial discussions in the comments.
In addition to your personal experiences, I think you should have emphasized that there is no “white nation.” A nation is a *people*, and WNs neither constitute nor represent any real nation.
As you have written before, the whites of the old Confederacy are a real people, living on a real homeland that has been and could again be independent. Neither Lindner nor Giles seem to get that one must have a people, or nation, before one can even begin to think about having a nation-state.
Giles seems like a guy who is always on the edge of shouting and intense anger.
Linder talked about living in the majority black Washington, D.C., then Giles says Linder is all theoretical. Huh? Hunter Wallace grew up in some of the mostly heavily black areas of the country. But accoring to Giles, HW is all theoretical? Giles definition of theoretical seems to be being raped, killed or mugged.
What’s the point of holocaust denial when you admit genocidal intent? This is cognitive dissonance.
Am i missing something?
Hunter & Palmetto Patriot,
You two have mentioned a number of times how you would rather live around your fellow Southern Christians than the White Nationalist VNN types. Hunter has said that a Southern Christian would be more likely to help him when there is an emergency of some sort than a WN. Hunter feels more comfortable around his own people down south, that is understandable.
I’ve got some bad news for you guys. If a reporter from MSNBC stuck a microphone in the face of your Southern Christian neighbors and asked them if they knew about or endorsed your beliefs they would say that they didn’t know anything about it and if pressed they would plead that they don’t share them. They’d say “oh no I’m not a racist” and then they would condemn and repudiate you and your beliefs.
A WN, whatever else they are, would not do that to you. They’d back you and say “I agree with him and screw you MSNBC.” Your point about southern “honor culture” is a valid one (and a correct one) but it is not the whole story.
After listening to the archive, I believe I handled myself well. I made it clear that exterminating the Jews or murdering anyone who is innocent for ideological reasons is immoral. I didn’t bring the subject up, but that’s the type of debates you will find in White Nationalism.
I think Linder had far better answers to the holohoax than you. You were umm and ahhing and clearing your throat all over the place. It was obvious you were insecure about your answers. Even though I’m personally convinced the gassings stories are complete and utter bullshit I don’t think it’s a good idea to come out and call the whole thing a lie the way Linder did; but that’s still a better answer than yours. What is really effective is the one-two punch of calling it crap and immediately turning around and focusing on the myriad ways it is being used to fuck you over and insisting that that is an incredibly immoral thing to do. Linder was very good at that. If you want to go one step further yet you could use that as a lead in to your political solution (in your case secession, in his case.. well, no one’s ever really sure). Like not having to deal with your children’s minds being poisoned this way is just one benefit of secession (say); not having anti-white assholes accosting you with disingenuous questions like “oh but what about the holocaust and all those poor jews and blah blah” every time you want to take pride in your ethnoracial identity is just one of the benefits of political independence; and so on.
Always be attacking, always. Defense is for suckers. That has to be the conclusion. Even though Giles was just being an asshole with those questions (taking out his frustrations on you both) it was worth sitting through if it leads you to this conclusion.
I couldn’t help but burst into laughter when Giles lost it on Linder at around the 10 minute mark.
Where Linder really screwed up was calling for extermination and then backing away from answering further questions about it. Dumb, dumb, dumb. I mean, blanket extermination is immoral first and foremost, but it’s also extremely dumb to suggest it as a solution. What a waste of the rhetorical momentum he’d built up. If he’d said something like Jews are not part of his group and they are going to be treated like any other outsider group, but one to which special attention is owing because of the sheer extent of their organized anti-white activities he could then have gone on to talk about tribunals and reparations and that sort of thing. He totally destroyed any chance of doing that with dumb grade-school bluster about extermination.
I gave an honest answer:
1.) I’m not interested in the Holocaust. Some people are interested in that subject. I am not one of them. I rarely write about Europe in general.
2.) I definitely believe that Hitler killed lots of Jews. How many did he kill? I honestly don’t know because the subject has never interested me enough to research the matter.
3.) I assume that it is somewhat less than “6 million,” but no one will ever know the precise figure, including mainstream historians.
4.) I’m not invested in trying to prove or disprove the Holocaust because it is irrelevant to what I am trying to do here. I said that I am focused on North America. I don’t have any interest in the outcome of that debate.
5.) Southerners fought against Hitler in WW2. I think it was another unnecessary war like WW1, Korea, Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq, etc.
6.) It’s true that I sounded uncertain: unlike Linder, I won’t say that the Holocaust is a lie. I will say that I don’t know and don’t care and don’t consider myself an authority on that subject.
If I knew the answer, I would have sounded more confident, but I honestly don’t know the answer, so I pretty much kicked it back to Giles and Linder.
7.) I said that it is immoral to murder an innocent person. I also said advocating exterminating the Jews is an insane position that will only polarize 99.9% of White people against us.
There is an element of cognitive dissonance between saying absolutely the Jews were not exterminated and then turning around and advocating exterminating the Jews as a matter of principle. I’m sure that is what most people picked up on.
He thinks it is a good idea to come off sounding like the Antichrist of Kirksville.
4.) I’m not invested in trying to prove or disprove the Holocaust because it is irrelevant to what I am trying to do here. I said that I am focused on North America. I don’t have any interest in the outcome of that debate.
But the outcome of that debate has a great deal of interest in you.
It really doesn’t matter whether you want to affirm it or deny it though. Even if you want to affirm it, you should still take a very indignant stance against the way it is being used to harm you.
6.) It’s true that I sounded uncertain: unlike Linder, I won’t say that the Holocaust is a lie. I will say that I don’t know and don’t care and don’t consider myself an authority on that subject.
If I knew the answer, I would have sounded more confident, but I honestly don’t know the answer, so I pretty much kicked it back to Giles and Linder.
LOL. As if the people putting that question to you care whether you really know anything about it or not. Hope must surely spring eternal if you think “kicking it back” whomever asks you is any way out of the trap.
I remember Jared Taylor trying the “well gosh I haven’t really looked into it” approach with that vile prick Larry Auster. Auster sunk his teeth into it like the vicious attack dog he is and would not let go. Made Taylor look like an evasive punk the way he kept pestering him with “So you think there is a 50-50 even chance that it happened, is that what you’re saying?”
I would have just told that prick, well Larry, we can take a look together, the both of us, at the sorts of questions revisionists ask about the gassings claims. We’ll look at them one by one, go over them line by line, and you can tell me which ones you think are unreasonable to ask, okay? Because that’s what revisionists are languishing in jail for: asking awkward questions and having the gall to provide honest answers to them. So how about it?
You say something like that then they go on the back foot rather than you.
And one more thing, if you’re going to claim you’ve never looked into it, then just leave it at that. Don’t introduce specialist language like Einsatzgruppen; doing so only gives lie to your claim of disinterest.
Re: Silver
1.) There are people around here who fought in that war. If Hitler killed lots of Jews, it is not our fault.
2.) I reacted with genuine astonishment because I wasn’t expecting to debate the Holocaust and genuine uncertainty because I honestly don’t know much about the topic.
3.) I sat down and tried to research the Holocaust a few years ago, but the books I checked out ended up collecting dust on my desk.
4.) I’m honestly not being evasive: if I had a firm opinion on that subject, I would have debated the matter, but since it doesn’t interest me and I don’t know much about it, I demurred.
5.) I don’t know much about the history of Poland much less the Holocaust.
6.) I’m familiar with the Einsatzgruppen from the war. I don’t think there is any doubt that they executed large numbers of Jews, so there is definitely some truth to the Holocaust, but I have never studied the camps.
7.) What does it matter? It is immoral to murder anyone. It doesn’t matter if the number is 600 or 6 million.
1.) There are people around here who fought in that war. If Hitler killed lots of Jews, it is not our fault.
Indeed. That’s something you could have said in the interview. In fact, you could have either just said that and then said no more; or you could have said that and then gone on to deal in more detail with the way the holocaust is used to attack white identity.
2.) I reacted with genuine astonishment because I wasn’t expecting to debate the Holocaust and genuine uncertainty because I honestly don’t know much about the topic.
Won’t do you any good pleading your innocence with me, Hunter Wallace. I already sympathize with your predicament. It’s your future audience (internet, radio, meeting hall, TV) you have to think about. They won’t be as understanding if you come unprepared.
4.) I’m honestly not being evasive: if I had a firm opinion on that subject, I would have debated the matter, but since it doesn’t interest me and I don’t know much about it, I demurred.
Again, I believe you. But other people won’t. When you get down to it, it just doesn’t fucking matter whether you know anything about it or have any interest in knowing anything about it or not. Your audience will expect you to have a believable answer because your enemies have (or will have) prepared them to expect you to know something.
This isn’t always possible (it depends on the kind of situation you’re in), but if conditions permit a very effective answer is to say something like: Well, you know, it’s a funny old question. It’s a bit like a geologist who kept being asked questions about dermatology and was told it’s not good enough that he doesn’t know anything about dermatology, so he decided to learn a few things about dermatology. I never had any interest in the holocaust, never thought I needed to a single thing about it. But people kept on asking and asking and asking so I decided to learn a few things.
Then you have a few options. If you want to keep the tone jovial you can say “And the truth is I don’t know much more about it today then I did before I started :).” Or if you want to defend revisionists you can say “And the truth is there are many more challenging questions being raised about it then I was ever aware.” Or whatever approach you want to take you can just take it from there.
The important point is to have an answer and then turn it around back on them and the way they’re using it to attack white identity.
Or you can sit there pleading that, b-b-b-but I just don’t know anything about the holocaust, sir, I swear it! That’s about as effective as Linder on extermination.
6.) I’m familiar with the Einsatzgruppen from the war. I don’t think there is any doubt that they executed large numbers of Jews, so there is definitely some truth to the Holocaust, but I have never studied the camps.
Okay, but the point is it’s a specialist term. If you’re familiar with specialist terms like that the impression is going to be that you’re familiar with a hell of a lot more (that you’re not letting on). And for heavens sake, don’t use the German. Just call them ‘death squads.’ Anti-whites can get away with substituting the scary German terms for the English equivalents because they can scare people into submission with them. If pro-whites do it it sounds like not only might you be concealing plans to kill people, you want to do in the original German to boot, you nazi.
7.) What does it matter? It is immoral to murder anyone. It doesn’t matter if the number is 600 or 6 million.
That reeks of being a prepared answer and comes across as you trying to minimize it. It’s not horrible, and some people will see your point, but why settle for crumbs when you can go for the whole enchilada by turning the holocaust back on them by taking a stand against the way it’s being used to attack white identity?
1.) I think I did say something to that effect.
The issue never comes up around here. I don’t know anyone in real life who feels guilty about slavery or the Holocaust.
There are people in literally every town around here who fought in WW2. I don’t get the impression that any of them are haunted by any sense of guilt over what Hitler did in Europe.
2.) Look, if you had asked me for a firm position on the Armenian genocide, I would have reacted with even more uncertainty because I have never studied that subject and have no opinion on it.
I don’t write about Armenia or Poland or Nazi Germany. Those subjects just don’t really interest me. If you want an opinion on the Holocaust, you should arrange a debate between Greg Johnson and Hadding.
3.) I can’t be prepared to have a firm opinion on every historical subject. I am happy to write about what I know and that includes controversial subjects, but the Holocaust is just not something I know much about.
4.) I engage in “historical revisionism” myself – just not on that subject, so I will leave it to the people who do to figure out the Holocaust.
5.) I’m familiar with the Second World War, but that is hardly synonymous with the camps. As I said before, I tried to research the matter one time, but I never pursued it because I have no real interest in the Holocaust to care either way.
6.) Because, I don’t care about the Holocaust, in addition to a thousand other subjects that have never aroused my interest to research with any passion.
I don’t know what the fucking number is. I know it is “a lot” and that’s enough to settle the matter for me. The people who care about the Holocaust can argue over the details.
I would not tailgate their agenda. I would always push my own agenda.
There have been many genocides in history. I am not here to discuss something that that occurred half a century ago and is over and done with. I am here to discuss the ongoing genocide of my race, the White race. It is happening right now. Are you using one genocide to justify another genocide? Are you targeting my race for extinction?
William Pierce handled the Holocaust question well in one of his ADV broadcasts. I think the particular broadcast was one discussing David Irving.
Yes, I found it. It’s titled “Shielding Evil.” Below is a link.
http://www.natall.com/free-speech/fs006a.html
The issue never comes up around here. I don’t know anyone in real life who feels guilty about slavery or the Holocaust.
I can appreciate that the issue doesn’t come up often. But then few people really take secession or racial separatism (which is after all, a long term aim of yours) very seriously, or are even aware that those are viable political options. If people were aware you could expect there to be much more noise about the holohoax. I’m suggesting you be prepared with effective responses to questions that arise.
Also, since you mention it, just how do you do you know what people’s guilt feelings are (or are not)? It seems to me that few people would go around announcing their guilt or stating in definite terms that “I don’t feel guilty” so I wonder just how you’ve arrived at that conclusion. My guess would be you’ve done it by reading between the lines of what they say or do but that isn’t always the most reliable guide.
There are people in literally every town around here who fought in WW2. I don’t get the impression that any of them are haunted by any sense of guilt over what Hitler did in Europe.
Fair enough. But not many of them received holohoax-based anti-racist educations either. Unlike millions of young adults out there.
2.) Look, if you had asked me for a firm position on the Armenian genocide, I would have reacted with even more uncertainty because I have never studied that subject and have no opinion on it.
But they’re not asking “your opinion” on the holohoax. They’re trying to provoke a reaction out of you, trying to make you look bad. It’s an attack, not an innocent question. That’s exactly why nobody would bother to ever inquire into your opinion on the Armenian genocide, because it cannot form the basis of an attack on you the way questions on the holohoax can (and are designed to).
3.) I can’t be prepared to have a firm opinion on every historical subject. I am happy to write about what I know and that includes controversial subjects, but the Holocaust is just not something I know much about.
Your enemies don’t care whether you know anything or not. I’m sure you already understand this at some level, so play dumb with me if you feel you must but take on board what I’m telling you.
6.) Because, I don’t care about the Holocaust, in addition to a thousand other subjects that have never aroused my interest to research with any passion.
I don’t know what the fucking number is. I know it is “a lot” and that’s enough to settle the matter for me. The people who care about the Holocaust can argue over the details.
I understand that you don’t care about it. I’m not suggesting that you start caring or that you learn anything about it. I’m suggesting that “I don’t care about the holocaust” or “I don’t know anything about the holocaust” is not an effective answer. It’s not even close.
Think about it. If I wanted to make you look bad after you claimed you don’t know anything about it I’d give you a quick history lesson and claim that Hitler thought the same thing about race as you do and look what he went and did; do you agree with what Hitler did? Do you want to do the same thing? What assurances does anyone have that you won’t?
What are you going to say then? If you try to argue the details I will remind you that you claimed not to know anything about it, and I will wonder openly just what else you know but aren’t telling us. You’re not going to come out of it looking good, Hunter, you’re just not. That’s why having an effective approach to dealing with questions of this sort and, better yet, a ‘counter-offensive’ strategy planned is so important. That’s the point I’m trying to make.
Re: Silver
1.) I’m not trying to give you a slick, prepackaged answer.
2.) It would be politically expedient for me to say, “of course, the Nazis killed 6 million Jews, and anyone who disagrees is really, really crazy,” and we shouldn’t have anything to do with Holocaust revisionists.
3.) To be completely honest with you, I just like to research things on my own and form my own opinions, and seeing as how I have never had much interest in the Holocaust, I don’t have much of a take on it.
4.) If there are millions of guilt ridden White Southern teenagers, I have never met them. Most teenagers in high school are more interested in getting laid or being popular and going to parties.
5.) I don’t care if they provoke a reaction.
My honest reaction is that I just don’t know. I’m sure that a lot of Jews were killed, but the subject doesn’t interest me, and I don’t pretend to be an authority on it, and I can’t sustain any attention to learn more about it.
6.) White Southerners fought against Hitler so it is absurd to suggest that we share the same views on race and Jews. There were lots of White Southerners in the military who liberated those stupid camps over there. Almost everyone in the South is related to someone who fought in WW2.
7.) Feel free to try to paint me as a Neo-Nazi. I’m genuinely not a Neo-Nazi. I have little interest in the Third Reich and even less interest in the Holocaust. I don’t even write much about Europe in general. Insofar as I have any interest in Europe at all, I love Antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Early Modern Era, and the Enlightenment, but 20th century Europe depresses the hell out of me.
I love the 19th century.
2.) It would be politically expedient for me to say, “of course, the Nazis killed 6 million Jews, and anyone who disagrees is really, really crazy,” and we shouldn’t have anything to do with Holocaust revisionists.
Yes, it would be expedient (if a bit cowardly). I already acknowledged above that this is one possible response. I simply urged you to not stop there but take the opportunity to denounce its use as a weapon against you. Since you didn’t give this response, though, my suspicion was that you don’t really believe that six million were killed or that anyone disagreeing that six million were is in any way crazy. That’s why I went on to suggest more effective responses than “I don’t know anything about it.”
6.) White Southerners fought against Hitler so it is absurd to suggest that we share the same views on race and Jews.
Absurd or not, suggest it they will (they already do). You’re already the equivalent of the nazis in people’s minds all across America and all across the world. I can accept that this isn’t you Southerners’ view of yourselves, but you’d think that in the interests of minimizing opposition you’d care a little bit about the impression you make on others. You can dismiss this if you like but I’d wonder why you so carelessly concede the other side such an easy PR win.
4.) If there are millions of guilt ridden White Southern teenagers, I have never met them.
Which tells me only that you haven’t met them, not that they don’t exist. Foolish indeed to proceed on the mere assumption that they don’t.
3.) To be completely honest with you, I just like to research things on my own and form my own opinions, and seeing as how I have never had much interest in the Holocaust, I don’t have much of a take on it.
If you just want to emphasize that point to me, that’s all very well. I’ll believe you. But it’s neither here nor there as it relates to having an effective response on the subject.
Just generally now (not addressing you, Hunter, relax):
“I think we’re seeing the standard narrative starting to unravel.” That’s another good pro-rev answer. There are lots of directions you can go if pressed: anti-anti-white; history of rev; political oppression etc.
Just listened. A lot of good analysis among these comments but in my opinion more ire is deserved by Giles than Linder. I find Linder to be very pragmatic, if a bad administrator and one of millions like us who is unable to provide a guaranteeably airtight plan. He goes further toward it than most though.
My own suggestions? Follow the advice of “Silver” and a few others who know what they’re talking about. And I don’t care if these talks were his idea or not, Giles needs to go! Every single statement, injection and question he forwards is off the wall and irrelevant. Gossip ain’t what it should be about. And that’s leaving the tantrums out.
One more thought on Linder. He seems to offend many here but I suggest that his program will work better than any alternatives I can think of – for his people. IOW, he can be a good ally and also evidence of ingrained national differences.
Hunter,
If you are going to study this thing, also look into the Genocides in the USSR. You would think there was only one genocide in history, the way some people carry on.
Holodomor was a big one the left tried to push down the memory hole, the Communists did it, by starving the entire Ukraine to death.
I suspect that is why the Germans put the Nazis in power, because they were terrified of what the Soviet Union was doing to their own people, there were millions of registered Communists in Germany and the Soviet Union was shipping them arms.
Communism all up, is estimated to have killed well over 100 million of its OWN citizens so far. The Jewish community should be answering questions about their involvement in Communism, because they invented it and were found at the highest levels of the Communist movement during the Bolshevik era.
Communists make the Nazis look like badly behaved boyscouts, in sheer numbers of people they have killed. Five times more murdered than the Nazis, yet these people are tolerated on our streets and in our Universities and they have never been made to face any court for their crimes.
The big problem with the Holocaust story is that there were NO gas chambers for killing Jews, or anyone else. None. Zero. It’s a fiction. A story.
Btw, There maybe some basis to the Jews to the showers story.
The Jews, and the Eastern European Jews in particular, were considered the filthiest people in Europe. They did not bathe. When they went into a German shower, and saw the steam rising they probably thought they were being gassed. It would have been the first encounter most Jews ever had with running water. It must have been traumatic for them.
If Southerners consider murder to be highly immoral then why are they so supportive of wars for Israel ? Saying they’re supportive of war is putting it lightly, those people are bloodthirsty.
The was no planned German genocide of Jews. It didn’t happen.
Here is how to answer the question on the Germans in ww2.
1) they killed mountains of white people. 25 million Russians.
2) they invaded dozens of other innocent white states and subjugated ethnic nationalisms.
3) the Nazis were imitating the Union tactics and aims. Centralization of power, monoculture, Yankee/German supremacy.
4) So much for German efficiency, they missed millions of Jews.
I saw Silver and earlier Greg Johnson made comments that the Confederacy is on par with the Third Reich in most people’s minds.
I don’t agree with that and I’m from Pennsylvania. Plenty of people in the South Part of Pennsylvania consider the civil war an “infight” they don’t rank Confederates up with Nazis.
My father even called General Lee an honorable man and is as much a liberal Democrat as they come.
HW you might not be interested in the holocaust, but the holocaust is interested in you.
When they come for Southern secession using the holocaust you are going to need a better comeback than , “I don’t know” or “many Southerners fought against Hitler (which suggests they will fight you as well).”
Your more than likely to find the answer at BUGs than the usual essayists who only quibble the details.
The host on that show is a bit unstable. Vitriol? How many times did he scream that?
Here we are, off in the weeds about the holocaust, who’s queer, personalities in the WN movement, etc *instead of* Southern secession. Again. (grrr)
Why are you explaining yourself, HW? (that’s a rhetorical question)
Have fun lighting up the exploding cigar of holocaust debate, guys.
Of course the problem is no one on the far right has the guts to say 6 million. Holocaust denial is the ideological clown car of the far right.
Right.
It’s the glue that binds disparate misfits and freaks. I care more about Andersonville than Auschwitz but I guess I’m in the minority.
“they invaded dozens of other innocent white states and subjugated ethnic nationalisms.”
Prior to England declaring war on Germany in 1939 the Germans merely re-acquired land unfairly taken from them by the Allies in WWI or incorporated German speaking peoples into the Reich. Austrians were overwhelmingly in favor of unification.
Continuous British propaganda blaming Germany and justifying the dysgenic slaughter of millions of their own (and the Commonwealth’s) men in the two World Wars is criminally absurd.
Silver,
1.) I think it is retarded that the Holocaust could be used as an accusation against us when White Southerners fought against Hitler in WW2.
2.) It is absurd to suggest that Southerners are “Nazis” when we fought against the Nazis. There are veterans in every Southern community who fought against the Germans and Japanese in WW2.
3.) The truth is, I just don’t know anyone who cares about the Holocaust, or who feels guilty about the Holocaust, or who spends their time dwelling on the Holocaust, so I don’t waste my time on the Holocaust.
4.) IMO, the most effective response is to tell the truth: I’m not interested in the Holocaust or Polish history, there are historians who specialize in that subject, and they are free to debate the subject until the end of time.
We need to focus more on Leo Frank than Anne Frank.
Both cases involve the loss of an innocent young white woman’s life. Though one is especially tragic because it set the precedent of a negro testimony being accepted against a white (albeit murderous) man.
Why does Tamer of Savages link his name to Yahooligans, a kids version of Yahoo?
A case can be made that Americans didn’t really care about the plight of Jews (although if Hitler killed 6,000,000 I am sure nobody expected that) UNTIL Israel became an ally.
Silver is right that antis will use it as an attack line even though it’s completely irrelevant to secession.
Defence or evasion is no defence, only attack works, so what i do now if it comes up is start talking about how the left use the holocaust as a smokescreen to cover up the 30 million people they murdered in the Soviet Union which is what led to Hitler coming to power in the first place. Then i start talking about how people should google the holodomor – start spelling it out slowly maybe if it’s a face to face conversation etc.
The thing is they *really* don’t want people to know what they did in Russia so responding to holocaust questions this way trains them to avoid the subject so you can talk about what you want to talk about.
Iceman,
I don’t imagine anyone considers the Confederacy (and the subsequent Jim Crow South) as literally on par with the Third Reich. But many people can see very disturbing (to them) similarities between them. I formed this conclusion myself at about age ten from reading junior history books. I wouldn’t have used the following the words at the time, but my basic belief could have been summed up as: at bottom, they were both race-based societies that used race as a weapon to hurt and humiliate others. Hunter can call making associations between the two absurd and retarded, but if I’m an anti that is such a blindingly obvious move that I’d be an absolute fool not to make it. (All’s fair in love and war.)
There are laws in Europe that criminalize investigating the holo hoax. That’s reason enough not to believe the traditional numbers.
Of course it is absurd.
1.) There was no Jewish Question in the Confederacy. Jews served at the highest levels of the Confederate government.
2.) White Southerners and Nazi Germany were on opposite sides of WW2. In the War Between the States, most German immigrants fought for the Union, not the Confederacy.
3.) Southerners were fighting a war of independence from the central government. The major issue in the war was not slavery. It was the right of a state to secede from the federal government.
4.) Like Hitler, Lincoln was fighting to preserve and consolidate the Union, and transform a voluntary Union of states into centralized regime based in Washington, and to conquer other nations.
5.) Slavery had nothing to do with WW2. There were only a handful of blacks in Nazi Germany.
The only real similarity is that the Confederacy and Nazi Germany were violently destroyed by the United States in the name of freedom and democracy.
It is absurd to suggest that Southerners are “Nazis” when we fought against the Nazis.
Absurd, yet highly effective.
Serbs suffered terribly during WWII. In terms of victims stakes Serbs are right up there. They even had their own exclusive death camp (Jasenovac). This doesn’t mean they can compete with the Michael Jordans of victimhood — think elderly ‘holocaust survivors’ showing off their Auschwitz tatts — but it’s not nothing either. But come the wars in Croatia and Bosnia it stopped no one from branding them the “new nazis.”
Hell, the left even gets away with doing it to Israel today. If that doesn’t prove that who’s side you were on in WWII is all but meaningless I don’t know what does.
MO, the most effective response is to tell the truth: I’m not interested in the Holocaust or Polish history
Naive. Gloriously naive.
The only real similarity is that the Confederacy and Nazi Germany were violently destroyed by the United States in the name of freedom and democracy.
And retrospectively, anti-racism. And that’s all the link one needs.
“I’m sure that a lot of Jews were killed (…) White Southerners fought against Hitler so it is absurd to suggest that we share the same views on race and Jews. There were lots of White Southerners in the military who liberated those stupid camps over there.”
How is it “absurd” that White Southerners could share the same views on race as Germans? Just because “White Southerners fought against Hitler” shouldn’t require their descendents to continue to take that same fighting stance, and continue holding opposite views even today.
“I’m not interested in the Holocaust….”
There are some issues so crucial that we need to study them, to understand them, whether we are interested or not. The foremost being what is our eternal destiny, but that is a religious hobby horse….
One could argue that world war II wasn’t really fought over ‘racism vs anti-racism’ but for control over resources. Hitler (and the Axis in general) simply became a threat to US-British power.
Thus, if this is correct (and I have a hunch that it is), the relative “ideologies” of America and Germany were simply excuses to expand their influence for the benefit of those at the top level of Government.
Finally, America still discriminated in favor of whiteness during WWII, it just didn’t adopt the ‘aryanism’ of Hitler.
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/WW2/US%20apartheid.htm
Hunter wrote: “Like Hitler, Lincoln….”
That happens to be one of the Tea Partiers’ favourite Tenth Amendment talking points.
“America still discriminated in favor of whiteness during WWII”???? But I will not ride the World War II hobby horse.
“The truth is, I just don’t know anyone who cares about the Holocaust….”
!