Notices
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 212
Like Tree11Likes

Thread: Modern Nazi

  1. #101  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    THERE's your Lamarck! Some enterprising fellow, through means fair or foul, acquires the mantle of royalty, passing it down to his descendants regardless of other merit, conferring a significant advantage as far as survival. An important acquired trait, wouldn't you say, iceaura? Perhaps you may begin your quest here!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    No, but he WAS King until forced to abdicate, which made him head of state, which surely qualifies as "part of the government".
    Absolutely not.
    Look, Great Britain was a MONARCHY then just as much as it is now. A theocracy too, considering that the monarch is head of the Church of England.
    It is a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy (see why my previous answer was so clever?). The monarch has a purely symbolic role. If you think this makes them part of the government, then I guess we would need to include the doorman and the gardeners at the houses of parliament.
    OK, smart guy, I stand corrected. Please provide a copy of the "constitution" of which you speak, it must be an important document. And do the British drink to the health of the doorman, or perhaps sing, "God save the gardeners"? You must think I'm pretty stupid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Of course, POSING as a "figurehead" absolves you of all responsibility for unpopular decisions, allowing the monarch to bask in the adulation of the masses without interruption, just as in the good old days of the whipping boys.

    None of that "buck stops here" or "L'etat, c'est moi!" nonsense!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    19,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    OK, smart guy, I stand corrected. Please provide a copy of the "constitution" of which you speak, it must be an important document.
    Please drop the attitude. It is very tedious.

    As I'm sure you know, the UK has an "unwritten" constitution made up of various laws, treaties, precedents and conventions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    You are invited to elaborate on what debt the eugenics movement owes to Lamarck
    None, as far as I know. They seem to have made the common errors on their own.
    Thank you for the graceful concession of defeat. Nazi racial policies were eugenic in nature and therefore owe nothing to Lamarck, ipso facto, Darwin takes the fall, out for the count!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    THERE's your Lamarck! Some enterprising fellow, through means fair or foul, acquires the mantle of royalty, passing it down to his descendants regardless of other merit, conferring a significant advantage as far as survival. An important acquired trait, wouldn't you say, iceaura?
    Nope. That's pretty much Darwinian.

    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    Perhaps you may begin your quest here!
    ? What am I looking for?

    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    Nazi racial policies were eugenic in nature and therefore owe nothing to Lamarck, ipso facto, Darwin takes the fall, out for the count!!!
    Their theories more closely resembled Lamarck's than Darwin's - they had almost no basis in Darwinian theory.

    I don't think you can blame Darwin even for someone's honest incomprehension of his theory, let alone the misuse of tangetially related vocabulary for propaganda by tyrants. He tried to be clear about it, and lots of people seem to have understood it just fine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    OK, smart guy, I stand corrected. Please provide a copy of the "constitution" of which you speak, it must be an important document.
    Please drop the attitude. It is very tedious.

    As I'm sure you know, the UK has an "unwritten" constitution made up of various laws, treaties, precedents and conventions.
    And I have an "unwritten" check for eleven million Yankee dollars- strangely, nobody will cash it, alas. If my behavior were regulated by solely "unwritten" laws, I could pretty much do exactly as I pleased, couldn't I?

    Ooooooooh, it's GOOD to be the King!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Any stage magician will tell you that misdirection is the key to a successful performance. When your family business has had centuries of practice and the strongest of incentives for the entire time, you might get bloody good at it.

    "But many's the King on a first class throne/If he wants to call his throne his own/Must somehow manage to put through/More dirty work than ever I do!"- Pirates of Penzance
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    THERE's your Lamarck! Some enterprising fellow, through means fair or foul, acquires the mantle of royalty, passing it down to his descendants regardless of other merit, conferring a significant advantage as far as survival. An important acquired trait, wouldn't you say, iceaura?
    Nope. That's pretty much Darwinian.

    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    Perhaps you may begin your quest here!
    ? What am I looking for?

    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    Nazi racial policies were eugenic in nature and therefore owe nothing to Lamarck, ipso facto, Darwin takes the fall, out for the count!!!
    Their theories more closely resembled Lamarck's than Darwin's - they had almost no basis in Darwinian theory.

    I don't think you can blame Darwin even for someone's honest incomprehension of his theory, let alone the misuse of tangetially related vocabulary for propaganda by tyrants. He tried to be clear about it, and lots of people seem to have understood it just fine.
    You are merely being contrary without the slightest hint of other consistency. If you want to correct the original Nazis, they are dead. If you want to lecture the neo-Nazis, be my guest. If you want to discuss modern eugenics, you might read up on Galton. If you just want to say "black" when someone else says "white", stay the course.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    You are merely being contrary without the slightest hint of other consistency.
    Nazi "eugenics" was not based on Darwinian theory.

    Nazi propaganda and self-justification vocabulary did not create an actual alternate reality even then, let alone now.

    This isn't all that complicated - if you have a handle on Darwinian theory in the first place.

    Which modern Nazis - a fringe group attracted to black leather and shiny ornaments - do not, by and large.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Great. May I suggest you take your handle to another thread? This one is about the Nazis, remember the Nazis? This is a thread about the Nazis, who, like Darwin and Galton and good old Eddie VIII, were racists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    Great. May I suggest you take your handle to another thread? This one is about the Nazis, remember the Nazis? This is a thread about the Nazis, who, like Darwin and Galton and good old Eddie VIII, were racists.
    You're the guy bringing in Darwin for some reason.

    I'm the guy who keeps bringing the topic back to "modern" Nazis - who are indeed racists, and without (most of them) having read a word of Darwin, or having been acquainted with his racism (such as it was) in any way.

    My suspicion is that we are actually talking about modern fascism, somehow, rather than Nazis per se. As there is no Nazi party or similar organization with validation authority, we're limited to the self-identified as far as Nazis are concerned. So the answer to the question of the OP would be - ask them, and whatever they tell you goes. That would not be the underlying topic though, probably.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Too right, in #11. And I have had ample cause to regret it since, though it is entirely factual and relevant to the original question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    What role did the English play in WW2. Did they give Hitler money and orders?
    I simply do not understand why you find it necessary to hide your outstanding intellect behind this type of question.
    Probably the main cause is modesty altho' it is just possible the questions have an underlying subtlety some of us are unable to grasp.
    Of course the English did stand on the sidelines, drinking German beer, and giving Hitler money and orders. What other reason could he possibly have had for planning an invasion, of Britain, and bombing our cities?
    You have to remember that Hitler was Chancellor *before* he started declaring his wars. Had the British possessed a magical crystal ball that could tell them what Hitler was going to do before he did it, I'm sure they wouldn't have supported him, but clear fact of the matter is they didn't have a crystal ball. A lot of people in the USA supported Hitler as well in the early stages.

    Hitler only invaded England because the only way he could go on conquering beyond taking the Sudetenland was to violate the Munich Agreement he had made with Neville Chamberlain, which would enter him into war with England. And once he was at war, well....... I'm sure he kind of wanted to win, so naturally he had to start bombing and invading and such. Also it's likely that he was a psychopath, so personal loyalty wouldn't have meant a whole lot to him.


    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Nazi "eugenics" was not based on Darwinian theory.
    Nazi propaganda and self-justification vocabulary did not create an actual alternate reality even then, let alone now.

    This isn't all that complicated - if you have a handle on Darwinian theory in the first place.

    Which modern Nazis - a fringe group attracted to black leather and shiny ornaments - do not, by and large.
    I'm going to call "revisionist history" on that. Certainly Darwinism in its present form would not be useful as a support for Nazism, but Darwinism in its present form didn't exist back then. Back then, racism was still a highly popular outlook, so I'd say it's highly unlikely that the whole scientific community was in agreement as to its importance or lack thereof.

    However, to whatever degree science may have supported or been indifferent to racism then, it has done a full 180 since. The risk of a modern Nazi (the topic of the OP) using modern Darwinism to ignite another race war is minimal at best.
    - Listen to the message of The Holy Prophet of the Mighty God Buga Wuga. His Emissary, Servant, and Humble Treasurer, who doth administer all of his Earthly assets (in case you feel like making a donation.)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Hitler DID in fact invade England, but only the Channel Islands. And no crystal ball was necessary as Hitler and the Nazis were clearly militaristic and expansionist as spelled out in Mein Kampf. Found a nice article relevant to the subject:

    Hitler
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by corrected - kojax
    Certainly Darwinism in its present form would not be useful as a support for Nazism, but Darwinism in its present form didn't exist back then.
    If you don't mean Darwinism, don't use the word.

    Modern Nazis, in my experience, are mired in the same confusions as Hitler's minions were, regarding Darwinian theory. We are not bound to accept their bs as reflective of reality. Darwinian theory is not what Nazis say it is, and never has been.
    Last edited by iceaura; January 27th, 2012 at 04:34 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    Certainly Darwinism in its present form would not be useful as a support for Nazism, but Darwinism in its present form didn't exist back then.
    If you don't mean Darwinism, don't use the word.

    Modern Nazis, in my experience, are mired in the same confusions as Hitler's minions were, regarding Darwinian theory. We are not bound to accept their bs as reflective of reality. Darwinian theory is not what Nazis say it is, and never has been.
    Nor is it what you claim it is, whatever that might be. And you have attributed to me a statement made by kojax, sloppy, that.

    As odd as it sounds, I'm rather tired of Darwin and his Nazi offspring for the moment, good night, sir.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,647
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Great. May I suggest you take your handle to another thread? This one is about the Nazis, remember the Nazis? This is a thread about the Nazis, who, like Darwin and Galton and good old Eddie VIII, were racists.
    Your identification of Darwin as a a racist reveals that your education in matters Darwinian is superficial, ill informed and wrong. You appear to favour what you imagine are potent sound bites in your posts, rather than well reasoned arguments. This has two disadvantages: it uses up bandwidth and makes you look like a bit of a prat.

    Redeem yourself by providing direct evidence of Darwin's racism that pays full attention to the context of Victorian thought on such matters. When you do attempt to do so you will qucikly find, if you are honest with yourself, that Darwin's attitude to race was well towards the enlightened end of the spectrum for that time. Nor can you brand him with the stupidity practiced by his cousin Galton.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    Nor is it what you claim it is, whatever that might be.
    Uh, yeah, it is.

    And if it were not, that would still not make it a theoretical approach that supports the Nazi's goofball "master race" eugenics. It isn't, and never was.

    If Hitler had been motivated to mass murder in furtherance of evident Darwinian superiority, he would have marched everyone in Germany with blonde or curly hair into the ovens, and sent their money to Peking for use by the master race.
    Last edited by iceaura; January 27th, 2012 at 04:49 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Great. May I suggest you take your handle to another thread? This one is about the Nazis, remember the Nazis? This is a thread about the Nazis, who, like Darwin and Galton and good old Eddie VIII, were racists.
    Your identification of Darwin as a a racist reveals that your education in matters Darwinian is superficial, ill informed and wrong. You appear to favour what you imagine are potent sound bites in your posts, rather than well reasoned arguments. This has two disadvantages: it uses up bandwidth and makes you look like a bit of a prat.

    Redeem yourself by providing direct evidence of Darwin's racism that pays full attention to the context of Victorian thought on such matters. When you do attempt to do so you will qucikly find, if you are honest with yourself, that Darwin's attitude to race was well towards the enlightened end of the spectrum for that time. Nor can you brand him with the stupidity practiced by his cousin Galton.
    Finally reading up on Galton, are you? Good show, maybe iceaura will follow your example! Using your logic we should therefore exonerate all people who only murder one person, since they are so much better than mass killers or serial murderers. I object to your opinionated description of myself as a "prat" and moreover submit it is irrelevant to the matter under discussion. A "prat" is perfectly capable of speaking the truth, and this I have done- if you wish to contradict me, facts will be more persuasive than insults, and if you wish to present a "well-reasoned argument", this example of yours wants improvement.

    We know racism to be based upon erroneous assumptions based upon trivial physical characteristics. A person who makes such assumptions is a RACIST, pure and simple. An erroneous belief remains erroneous no matter how popular it happens to be at any given time or the degree of vehemence with which it is stated. Saying that Darwin was "less racist" than others is in fact an admission, confirmed by his own words, that he did indeed subscribe to these beliefs.

    Good evening, sir.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    Nor is it what you claim it is, whatever that might be.
    Uh, yeah, it is.

    And if it were not, that would still not make it a theoretical approach that supports the Nazi's goofball "master race" eugenics. It isn't, and never was.

    If Hitler had been motivated to mass murder in furtherance of evident Darwinian superiority, he would have marched everyone in Germany with blonde or curly hair into the ovens, and sent their money to Peking for use by the master race.
    What "master race"? The Chinese or his Japanese allies? Certainly not the Aryans- see here, are you subscribing to some weird revisionist history or just fantasizing here?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,211
    Using your logic we should therefore exonerate all people who only murder one person, since they are so much better than mass killers or serial murderers.
    This is nonsense. We can only judge an historical person's actions and attitudes within the society they inhabited. It's one thing to say that a certain era or other historical span was violent or enlightened or oppressed women or whatever - that's pretty easy. You're comparing a whole era with the average of the current era.

    You can't do that for individuals within those societies. Very simply, put Darwin or someone like him alongside the worst and nastiest of our current crop of racists in Western societies. He'd come out pretty well on that comparison. You can do the same for women's rights. There are a whole heap of women and men of decades or centuries ago who stood up for women's rights. But they did it as they perceived them. Modern women and men would see them as stuffy, old-fashioned and prejudiced about the proper role and place of women. Despite being courageous, admirable people most of them would come out pretty badly by a modern comparison.

    Sojourner Truth's famous "Ain't I a woman" speech contains notions about women's intellectual inferiority that would make modern people laugh (or squirm or spit with rage). But she's much admired for her standing up for women's rights. Especially working women.

    'And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! (and she bared her right arm to the shoulder, showing her tremendous muscular power). I have ploughed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man – when I could get it – and bear de lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen chilern, and seen 'em mos' all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?"
    "Den dey talks 'bout dis ting in de head; what dis dey call it?" ("Intellect," whispered someone near.) "Dat's it, honey. What's dat got to do wid womin's rights or nigger's rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yourn holds a quart, wouldn't ye be mean not to let me have my little half-measure full?"
    The whole speech is the "unexpurgated" version by Gage at Ain't I a Woman? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . The earlier published versions conveniently omitted the references to class/status/race generally and to slavery in particular and to her children being taken from her.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Much has been made of Darwin's gentle personal character on on sites discussing the implications of Darwinist philosophy. Indeed, Darwin personally would likely have been horrified by the antics of maniacal atheists who invoke his name so fervently, as he was educated for the ministry. This does not change the fact that Darwinism led to the eugenics of Galton and the related social Darwinism which culminated in Nazi race science. It would not be the first or the last time unanticipated consequences have ensued from scientific speculation. Was racism common enough in Darwin's day? Of course- and it persists to a disturbing degree today, despite all we now know.

    Racism was certainly cultivated to justify chattel slavery- hence, it was a crime to teach a slave to read, despite their assumed mental inferiority. Their reluctance to work fervently to enrich another was attributed to inherent lassitude, rather than understandable or even noble resistance to exploitation, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Using your logic we should therefore exonerate all people who only murder one person, since they are so much better than mass killers or serial murderers.
    This is nonsense. We can only judge an historical person's actions and attitudes within the society they inhabited. It's one thing to say that a certain era or other historical span was violent or enlightened or oppressed women or whatever - that's pretty easy. You're comparing a whole era with the average of the current era.

    You can't do that for individuals within those societies. Very simply, put Darwin or someone like him alongside the worst and nastiest of our current crop of racists in Western societies. He'd come out pretty well on that comparison. You can do the same for women's rights. There are a whole heap of women and men of decades or centuries ago who stood up for women's rights. But they did it as they perceived them. Modern women and men would see them as stuffy, old-fashioned and prejudiced about the proper role and place of women. Despite being courageous, admirable people most of them would come out pretty badly by a modern comparison.

    Sojourner Truth's famous "Ain't I a woman" speech contains notions about women's intellectual inferiority that would make modern people laugh (or squirm or spit with rage). But she's much admired for her standing up for women's rights. Especially working women.

    'And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! (and she bared her right arm to the shoulder, showing her tremendous muscular power). I have ploughed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man – when I could get it – and bear de lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen chilern, and seen 'em mos' all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?"
    "Den dey talks 'bout dis ting in de head; what dis dey call it?" ("Intellect," whispered someone near.) "Dat's it, honey. What's dat got to do wid womin's rights or nigger's rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yourn holds a quart, wouldn't ye be mean not to let me have my little half-measure full?"
    The whole speech is the "unexpurgated" version by Gage at Ain't I a Woman? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . The earlier published versions conveniently omitted the references to class/status/race generally and to slavery in particular and to her children being taken from her.
    I think the point she was trying to make in the speech was that her inherent rights as a human being were independent of intellect- that she was entitled to dignity regardless of her degree of formal education or lack of same. I see no evidence that she sought to generalize this "half-measure" to women as a whole, "inferior" or not. Darwin was sexist too. Surprise, so was Hitler.

    http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi617.htm
    Last edited by Arthur Angler; January 28th, 2012 at 12:30 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Victorian attitudes towards homosexuality provided a convenient "out" for Darwin when it came to discussing WHY homosexuality, a phenomenon clearly detrimental to reproduction and hence, self-perpetuation, should not have disappeared. Instead, it is widespread in the animal kingdom.

    Same-sex Behavior Seen In Nearly All Animals, Review Finds

    Persecution of homosexuals in Germany both preceded and survived Hitler. For that matter, persecution of Jews in Europe was widespread, as were racism and sexism, before publication of Mein Kampf. Does this make Hitler less culpable?

    No.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,211
    Does this make Hitler less culpable?
    In fact it makes him more culpable.

    A man with certain gifts of oratory and leadership has an absolute duty to use those beneftis for the best in the group/s he leads. He also has an absolute obligation not to exploit the known weaknesses (and prejudices or foolishness or other negative attributes) within those people.

    The whole of Europe was pretty anti-semitic, the Russians were horrible, the 'new world' countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA were much the same. But those populations (forget the Russian pogroms for now) simply treated their prejudice against Jews in much the same way as they did against various racial groups. They/we simply presumed our own racial or religious superiority and made reference to the presumed vices of Jews (The Merchant of Venice) and the assumed inferiority of blacks (see Black & White Minstrel Show) as part of general culture - and avoided such people in the street.

    Hitler turned that chronic anti-Semitism into a crisis. A vicious unstoppable social force, by playing on the prejudice and fears of a demoralised population. With his abilities as an orator he could have done wonders in a positive direction. The mere fact that he could have done so, or he could have chosen to live a quiet life and not exercise those gifts, but he chose to do evil makes him much much worse than many of those excited, enchanted, mesmerised citizens who followed where he led.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    10,653
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Victorian attitudes towards homosexuality provided a convenient "out" for Darwin when it came to discussing WHY homosexuality, a phenomenon clearly detrimental to reproduction and hence, self-perpetuation, should not have disappeared. Instead, it is widespread in the animal kingdom.
    He never got to that point. For the most part he avoided the implications or associations of his hypothesis with humans because of personal struggles from his own training, loss of his daughter and the impact he knew it would have on his credibility in the eyes of others.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,775
    Plus it has not been shown that, in relation to the overall group of organisms, homosexuality is a detriment at all.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,996
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    Nor is it what you claim it is, whatever that might be.
    Uh, yeah, it is.

    And if it were not, that would still not make it a theoretical approach that supports the Nazi's goofball "master race" eugenics. It isn't, and never was.

    If Hitler had been motivated to mass murder in furtherance of evident Darwinian superiority, he would have marched everyone in Germany with blonde or curly hair into the ovens, and sent their money to Peking for use by the master race.
    From what I can tell, it's not so much that he thought Germans were superior as that he believed they should roll the dice on whether they were superior by waging an expansionistic war to take more land, so they could have more children, and food for them. In that light, it's really not so surprising that he would ally with the Japanese.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Hitler DID in fact invade England, but only the Channel Islands. And no crystal ball was necessary as Hitler and the Nazis were clearly militaristic and expansionist as spelled out in Mein Kampf. Found a nice article relevant to the subject:

    Hitler
    A lot of prominent Nazis were known to say things like "if only he hadn't written that silly book." when talking about Mien Kampf. Apparently some parts of it weren't all that popular with them either.

    "Hitler took the writing of Mein Kampf with great seriousness. Dietrich Eckart, Feder, and Rosenberg had all published books and pamphlets, and Hitler was anxious to establish his own position of intellectual as well as political authority in the Party. He was eager to prove that he too, even though he had never been to a university and had left school without a certificate, had read and thought deeply, acquiring his own Weltanschauung. It is this thwarted intellectual ambition, the desire to make people take him seriously as an original thinker, which accounts for the pretentiousness of the style, the use of long words and constant repetitions, all the tricks of a half-educated man seeking to give weight to his words. As a result Mein Kampf is a remarkably interesting book for anyone trying to understand Hitler's mind, but, as a party tract or a political best-seller, it was a failure, which few, even among party members, had the patience to read. --Alan Bullock, from 'Hitler: A Study in Tyranny.'


    http://wallyrus.tripod.com/mkindex.html
    - Listen to the message of The Holy Prophet of the Mighty God Buga Wuga. His Emissary, Servant, and Humble Treasurer, who doth administer all of his Earthly assets (in case you feel like making a donation.)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    when it came to discussing WHY homosexuality, a phenomenon clearly detrimental to reproduction and hence, self-perpetuation,
    Homosexuality is not clearly detrimental to reproduction, in Darwinian terms.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,647
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Finally reading up on Galton, are you?
    Hardly. anyone who has made a study of Darwin's life and of the reception of evolutionary theory is aware of Galton, just as they are aware of Huxley, and Wilberforce, and Wallace, and Fitzroy, and how Mendel's paper lay unopened in his library, and how he failed to properly acknowledge the influence of Erasmus Darwin on his thinking, and on an on. Once again you display an uncanny ability to jump to a concussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    I object to your opinionated description of myself as a "prat" and moreover submit it is irrelevant to the matter under discussion
    Learn to read. I said your behaviour made you look like a prat. I was offering you advice. You are free to ignore it ....... it's just that that makes you look like a bit of a prat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    We know racism to be based upon erroneous assumptions based upon trivial physical characteristics.
    Really? And here I was thinking it was a much more subtle condition related to evolutionary behavioural tendencies that were beneficial when we lived in tribal settings and it paid to be suspicious of strangers.

    At any rate, you still haven't delivered evidence that, in toto, demonstrates Darwin to have been a racist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Looking for evidence of Darwin's racism and sexism, I found that many promoters of same were put up by religious fundamentalists, which is pretty ironic since the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is packed full of the same stuff.

    Just an observation, glass houses and all that...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    when it came to discussing WHY homosexuality, a phenomenon clearly detrimental to reproduction and hence, self-perpetuation,
    Homosexuality is not clearly detrimental to reproduction, in Darwinian terms.
    It is rather a mystery how it is propagated, really, since 100% of organisms exhibiting homosexual behavior arise from heterosexual reproduction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    It is rather a mystery how it is propagated, really, since 100% of organisms exhibiting homosexual behavior arise from heterosexual reproduction.
    We lack solid explanation of how any sexual behavior in a social mammal is "propagated" - homosexual behavior no more (or less) mysterious than heterosexual behavior, in any given species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    9,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    when it came to discussing WHY homosexuality, a phenomenon clearly detrimental to reproduction and hence, self-perpetuation,
    Homosexuality is not clearly detrimental to reproduction, in Darwinian terms.
    It is rather a mystery how it is propagated, really, since 100% of organisms exhibiting homosexual behavior arise from heterosexual reproduction.
    Worker bees do not reproduce but they contribute to the perpetuation of their species by supporting the queen and the hive as a whole. I'm not sure how this would apply to homosexuality, though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by harold
    Worker bees do not reproduce but they contribute to the perpetuation of their species by supporting the queen and the hive as a whole.
    What survives, reproduces, etc, is the gene - not the species, not the organism.

    Worker bees's genes do reproduce.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    when it came to discussing WHY homosexuality, a phenomenon clearly detrimental to reproduction and hence, self-perpetuation,
    Homosexuality is not clearly detrimental to reproduction, in Darwinian terms.
    It is rather a mystery how it is propagated, really, since 100% of organisms exhibiting homosexual behavior arise from heterosexual reproduction.
    In the dark days of homophobia I think most homosexuals still married into heterosexual relationships. They just weren't very happy about it.

    One reason I'm glad to see homophobia end. Less competition for the females against pretty boys who don't want to be with them anyway.
    - Listen to the message of The Holy Prophet of the Mighty God Buga Wuga. His Emissary, Servant, and Humble Treasurer, who doth administer all of his Earthly assets (in case you feel like making a donation.)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    10,653
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    when it came to discussing WHY homosexuality, a phenomenon clearly detrimental to reproduction and hence, self-perpetuation,
    Homosexuality is not clearly detrimental to reproduction, in Darwinian terms.
    It is rather a mystery how it is propagated, really, since 100% of organisms exhibiting homosexual behavior arise from heterosexual reproduction.
    Not a mystery at all. The flaw in your thinking is that your aren't' considering that homosexuals often do reproduce anyhow and perhaps more important, homosexuality is probably not the only effect of what ever genetics give people the predisposition to become homosexual.

    Some simple examples:
    -lets say that those same genes tend to make people more fertile and the increased number of offspring who are still heterosexual happens to offset the few who choice not to reproduce because they turn homosexual. (as it turns out several studies do suggest mothers that bare homosexual children are often more fertile as well)

    -lets say those same genes also make people more social, stronger or have some other favorable characteristic which tends to improve survival of their closest genetic kin such as their brothers and sisters which share half their genes.

    Looking at only one trait is often an incomplete picture.
    --
    One reason I'm glad to see homophobia end. Less competition for the females against pretty boys who don't want to be with them anyway.
    Many females are also homosexual, so it's not clear at all that there would actually be more "available."
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,775
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    when it came to discussing WHY homosexuality, a phenomenon clearly detrimental to reproduction and hence, self-perpetuation,
    Homosexuality is not clearly detrimental to reproduction, in Darwinian terms.
    It is rather a mystery how it is propagated, really, since 100% of organisms exhibiting homosexual behavior arise from heterosexual reproduction.
    In the dark days of homophobia I think most homosexuals still married into heterosexual relationships. They just weren't very happy about it.

    One reason I'm glad to see homophobia end. Less competition for the females against pretty boys who don't want to be with them anyway.
    Pretty boys? really?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    In the dark days of homophobia I think most homosexuals still married into heterosexual relationships. They just weren't very happy about it.
    They still do.

    Then they rent guys like Jeff Gannon for sleepovers.

    And no one is surprised to see a thread on "modern Nazis" take this turn. Because it isn't surprising - some kind of connection between closeted homosexuality and fascist politics is taken for granted, here and everywhere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    when it came to discussing WHY homosexuality, a phenomenon clearly detrimental to reproduction and hence, self-perpetuation,
    Homosexuality is not clearly detrimental to reproduction, in Darwinian terms.
    It is rather a mystery how it is propagated, really, since 100% of organisms exhibiting homosexual behavior arise from heterosexual reproduction.
    Worker bees do not reproduce but they contribute to the perpetuation of their species by supporting the queen and the hive as a whole. I'm not sure how this would apply to homosexuality, though.
    True enough, but all worker bees are potentially queens, being female. They can therefore be seen as "protoqueens", not fully developed or sexually mature examples of queendom. Homosexuals tend not to reproduce their kind(nor their GENES, homosexual or other), yet heterosexuals do so readily, generation after generation in numerous species.

    Not that this, or anything Darwin REALLY meant, was of much consequence to Hitler and the Nazis- remember the Nazis? This is a thread about the Nazis.

    Militaristic, racist, anti-intellectual, anti-Communist, monarchist Nazis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    True enough, but all worker bees are potentially queens, being female. They can therefore be seen as "protoqueens", not fully developed or sexually mature examples of queendom. Homosexuals tend not to reproduce their kind(nor their GENES, homosexual or other), yet heterosexuals do so readily, generation after generation in numerous species.
    Actually no, they are not potentially queens only sharing the fact that they are female in common with the queen. LGBT people can and very often DO reproduce. Can you supply reliable sources the show otherwise?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    True enough, but all worker bees are potentially queens, being female. They can therefore be seen as "protoqueens", not fully developed or sexually mature examples of queendom. Homosexuals tend not to reproduce their kind(nor their GENES, homosexual or other), yet heterosexuals do so readily, generation after generation in numerous species.
    Worker bees are not "protoqueens", and none of them are potential queens - new queens are raised from new eggs, and cannot be obtained by converting workers.

    Their genes do reproduce, however, due to their efforts and contribution.

    You may be thinking of termites? The workers there are of both sexes, and by some evidence in some species choose to stay and help or leave and breed depending on economic factors.

    Whether or not "homosexual genes" exist remains an open question, but there is no doubt that even strictly homosexual humans often contribute significantly to the reproduction chances of their genes - more so than many heterosexual humans do.

    And a loop into the payoffs of homosexuality closeted and otherwise, in a discussion of fascistic politics, is no great digression.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,996
    The human body (or the body of any animal) is really just a hive of cells, not unlike what a hive of bees would be like at the ultimate extreme. Only the sperm and eggs portion of your body's cells will ever give rise to a new human. The rest of the cells are all descendants of a sperm and egg. And yet, selection manages to improve the structure of those non-reproductive cells because of the indirect effect they have on the sperm and eggs' survival and reproduction.

    Similarly, worker bees have an indirect effect on the queen's chance of reproduction, and so queens that have better worker bee genes survive more often than queens that have worse worker bee genes, causing the worker bee genes to evolve with her own genes.

    If communities that have gay offspring are surviving better than communities that don't have gay offspring (giving the females in that community a better chance for successful reproduction), then we can expect there would exist an indirect selection pressure for gay genes.
    - Listen to the message of The Holy Prophet of the Mighty God Buga Wuga. His Emissary, Servant, and Humble Treasurer, who doth administer all of his Earthly assets (in case you feel like making a donation.)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    True enough, but all worker bees are potentially queens, being female. They can therefore be seen as "protoqueens", not fully developed or sexually mature examples of queendom. Homosexuals tend not to reproduce their kind(nor their GENES, homosexual or other), yet heterosexuals do so readily, generation after generation in numerous species.
    Actually no, they are not potentially queens only sharing the fact that they are female in common with the queen. LGBT people can and very often DO reproduce. Can you supply reliable sources the show otherwise?
    LBGT people lack the ability to reproduce with their preferred sexual partners, hello, because they are HOMOSEXUAL. If they DO reproduce, they get really kinky like Mom and Dad did or use a turkey baster.

    "If not for being heavily fed royal jelly, the queen larva would have developed into a regular worker bee."

    Queen bee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    The human body (or the body of any animal) is really just a hive of cells, not unlike what a hive of bees would be like at the ultimate extreme. Only the sperm and eggs portion of your body's cells will ever give rise to a new human. The rest of the cells are all descendants of a sperm and egg. And yet, selection manages to improve the structure of those non-reproductive cells because of the indirect effect they have on the sperm and eggs' survival and reproduction.

    Similarly, worker bees have an indirect effect on the queen's chance of reproduction, and so queens that have better worker bee genes survive more often than queens that have worse worker bee genes, causing the worker bee genes to evolve with her own genes.

    If communities that have gay offspring are surviving better than communities that don't have gay offspring (giving the females in that community a better chance for successful reproduction), then we can expect there would exist an indirect selection pressure for gay genes.
    And has this selection pressure in fact been observed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,211
    And has this selection pressure in fact been observed?
    Haven't kept up to date with this stuff, but I'd suggest it'd be pretty easy to extend the "grandmother effect". What's the reproductive evolutionary advantage of having humans, and some other primates, have a lifespan beyond their own individual capacity to reproduce?

    An extra pair of hands to gather food or care for youngsters while the younger and fitter adults do the harder work is a distinct advantage in a social mammal. In any group where food gathering and processing is partly or entirely social, having a few adults unencumbered by caring for their own young is pretty valuable.

    And back to "nature" not having a purpose for homosexuals. Nature doesn't have any purposes. The fact that a proportion of the young produced by a group may not live long enough to reproduce, or never reproduce for failure to attract/be attracted by a mate, is neither here nor there in the greater scheme of things.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    And has this selection pressure in fact been observed?
    Haven't kept up to date with this stuff, but I'd suggest it'd be pretty easy to extend the "grandmother effect". What's the reproductive evolutionary advantage of having humans, and some other primates, have a lifespan beyond their own individual capacity to reproduce?

    An extra pair of hands to gather food or care for youngsters while the younger and fitter adults do the harder work is a distinct advantage in a social mammal. In any group where food gathering and processing is partly or entirely social, having a few adults unencumbered by caring for their own young is pretty valuable.

    And back to "nature" not having a purpose for homosexuals. Nature doesn't have any purposes. The fact that a proportion of the young produced by a group may not live long enough to reproduce, or never reproduce for failure to attract/be attracted by a mate, is neither here nor there in the greater scheme of things.
    Yes, it's the bee thingy. Worker bees care for the young, fight off intruders, keep the wax in the hive from melting, gather food for everyone, including the queen and otherwise worthless males who get to have all the fun. Talk about a raw deal!

    Last edited by Arthur Angler; February 2nd, 2012 at 08:23 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    LBGT people lack the ability to reproduce with their preferred sexual partners, hello, because they are HOMOSEXUAL.
    Their genes suffer from no such lack of ability, however - distributed, as they seem to be, throughout a larger population of relatives.

    And of course no one is restricted to "preferred" romantic partners, for reproduction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    True enough, but all worker bees are potentially queens, being female. They can therefore be seen as "protoqueens", not fully developed or sexually mature examples of queendom. Homosexuals tend not to reproduce their kind(nor their GENES, homosexual or other), yet heterosexuals do so readily, generation after generation in numerous species.
    Actually no, they are not potentially queens only sharing the fact that they are female in common with the queen. LGBT people can and very often DO reproduce. Can you supply reliable sources the show otherwise?
    LBGT people lack the ability to reproduce with their preferred sexual partners, hello, because they are HOMOSEXUAL. If they DO reproduce, they get really kinky like Mom and Dad did or use a turkey baster.

    "If not for being heavily fed royal jelly, the queen larva would have developed into a regular worker bee."

    Queen bee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    And yet every day homosexual couples do reproduce, as confirmed by your statement. what difference is it if the babies are not created by the missionary position?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    LBGT people lack the ability to reproduce with their preferred sexual partners, hello, because they are HOMOSEXUAL.
    Their genes suffer from no such lack of ability, however - distributed, as they seem to be, throughout a larger population of relatives.

    And of course no one is restricted to "preferred" romantic partners, for reproduction.
    Indeed, in today's society, gay people are generally free from the limitations of ritualized and legally sanctioned monogamy.

    Lucky sods.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    True enough, but all worker bees are potentially queens, being female. They can therefore be seen as "protoqueens", not fully developed or sexually mature examples of queendom. Homosexuals tend not to reproduce their kind(nor their GENES, homosexual or other), yet heterosexuals do so readily, generation after generation in numerous species.
    Actually no, they are not potentially queens only sharing the fact that they are female in common with the queen. LGBT people can and very often DO reproduce. Can you supply reliable sources the show otherwise?
    LBGT people lack the ability to reproduce with their preferred sexual partners, hello, because they are HOMOSEXUAL. If they DO reproduce, they get really kinky like Mom and Dad did or use a turkey baster.

    "If not for being heavily fed royal jelly, the queen larva would have developed into a regular worker bee."

    Queen bee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    And yet every day homosexual couples do reproduce, as confirmed by your statement. what difference is it if the babies are not created by the missionary position?
    Position don't enter into it so much as like, frequency. Of course the frequency of monogamous heterosexual couples is nothing to brag about, from my experience, and...

    WAIT A DANG MINUTE!

    We are neglecting those poor Nazis again! Dangit, this is a thread about the Nazis!

    Springtime For Hitler and Germany - YouTube
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    True enough, but all worker bees are potentially queens, being female. They can therefore be seen as "protoqueens", not fully developed or sexually mature examples of queendom. Homosexuals tend not to reproduce their kind(nor their GENES, homosexual or other), yet heterosexuals do so readily, generation after generation in numerous species.
    Actually no, they are not potentially queens only sharing the fact that they are female in common with the queen. LGBT people can and very often DO reproduce. Can you supply reliable sources the show otherwise?
    LBGT people lack the ability to reproduce with their preferred sexual partners, hello, because they are HOMOSEXUAL. If they DO reproduce, they get really kinky like Mom and Dad did or use a turkey baster.

    "If not for being heavily fed royal jelly, the queen larva would have developed into a regular worker bee."

    Queen bee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    And yet every day homosexual couples do reproduce, as confirmed by your statement. what difference is it if the babies are not created by the missionary position?
    Position don't enter into it so much as like, frequency. Of course the frequency of monogamous heterosexual couples is nothing to brag about, from my experience, and...

    WAIT A DANG MINUTE!

    We are neglecting those poor Nazis again! Dangit, this is a thread about the Nazis!

    Springtime For Hitler and Germany - YouTube
    Ahh, but your the one who seems to be making methodology of the childs creation an issue. Also where they have the option LGBT couples are just as inclined to monogamous relationships as hetero couples.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Methodology is pretty straightforward- either heterosexual intercourse or artificial insemination. If you have another alternative, by all means tell us. It is unclear what, if any, policy the Nazis had/have regarding artificial insemination- on the one hand it is not traditional, on the other it has certain utility in application to eugenics, as the market on bull semen will attest. Actually at present there is a lively trade in human semen. I would participate but it is tough to sell what you can't give away.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    So, as far as the Marxist perspective is concerned, and in view of the decidedly pro-monarchist bent of the Axis Powers of WWII and presumably their current-day sympathizers, the Nazis are "bourgeois nationalists", insofar as they fit the description given below:

    Bourgeois nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Divisions based upon "nationality, race, ethnicity or religion" are pretty much core beliefs of the Hitlerites. So has a small, disreputable, fringe movement initially despised by the ruling class and dedicated to religious bigotry ever before, in a few short years, ascended to prominence?

    Yes, at least one example is known to exist- the Orange Order in Ireland in 1796 and 1797. In this case, the group was ANTI-nationalistic in sentiment, at least as far as an Irish nation was concerned. In common with the Nazis, however, it aligned itself with the propertied interests of the day and was so found by those interests to be useful in maintaining the status quo.
    Last edited by Arthur Angler; February 4th, 2012 at 08:42 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    So has a small, disreputable, fringe movement initially despised by the ruling class and dedicated to religious bigotry ever before, in a few short years, ascended to prominence?
    The common story of fascist movements everywhere - depending on exactly how many years we are talking about, maybe.

    The US, in a few years from 1980.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Roswell NM
    Posts
    3
    A modern Nazi follows which ever faith or lack of they wish. Hitler's basic principles are of course our guide but modern life has to worked with. I don't think one race or another should be eliminated, however I don't think whites and blacks should mix. I believe that most peoples would do better if they aren't forced to mix. If a group of whites, blacks or Asians want to live together as a group, let them. Don't tell them that they must let others in to ruin their what ever they would call it. many places in the country do have neighborhoods like this, but only if the group is Whites does the law object. If a black can call another black a "nigger" then so should all be able to. Just try to get an attorney to take a case of of a Negro calling a White guy a cracker or honky ect.. Let me call a Negro a "nigger" and it's a hate crime. It's right or it's wrong all across the bored or it means nothing. Hitler was right about many things, not for sure, but no one is wrong all the time. Heil..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    13,780
    Quote Originally Posted by tigertank58 View Post
    Just try to get an attorney to take a case of of a Negro calling a White guy a cracker or honky ect..
    Been done: Anna Z: White Man Awarded $150,000 in Racism Lawsuit [names like "cracker," "polack" and "stupid white boy."

    Hitler was right about many things
    The only thing he got right was suicide. And he should have done that at least a decade earlier.

    Heil..
    Keep that up and you won't be here long.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Roswell NM
    Posts
    3
    Ok, I'll admit if I'm not all ways right. But you must admit it doesn't happen nearly as often as the other way round. Plus you didn't mock my other point. Not all ways wrong. Have a happy Thanks giving.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Roswell NM
    Posts
    3
    Sense when was the word "heil" in and of it self nasty?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    13,780
    Quote Originally Posted by tigertank58 View Post
    Plus you didn't mock my other point. Not all ways wrong.
    Perhaps you had difficulty understanding the words "The only thing he got right". That addressed the "not always wrong part".

    Have a happy Thanks giving.
    Whatever that is...

    Quote Originally Posted by tigertank58 View Post
    Sense when was the word "heil" in and of it self nasty?
    In and of itself it's not.
    It's the connotations and the context (specifically the one intended and used by you).
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; November 15th, 2015 at 10:09 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,996
    This was the OP:

    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    Could someone explain what a modern Nazi believes? Do they believe in Hitler? Do they believe in God? Who are their enemies and friends.

    Three years ago. So this is thread necromancy, but it's being raised from the dead by someone who genuinely wishes to answer the OP's question.

    I take it that this is what (some) modern Nazis believe:

    Quote Originally Posted by tigertank58 View Post
    A modern Nazi follows which ever faith or lack of they wish. Hitler's basic principles are of course our guide but modern life has to worked with. I don't think one race or another should be eliminated, however I don't think whites and blacks should mix. I believe that most peoples would do better if they aren't forced to mix. If a group of whites, blacks or Asians want to live together as a group, let them. Don't tell them that they must let others in to ruin their what ever they would call it. many places in the country do have neighborhoods like this, but only if the group is Whites does the law object. If a black can call another black a "nigger" then so should all be able to. Just try to get an attorney to take a case of of a Negro calling a White guy a cracker or honky ect.. Let me call a Negro a "nigger" and it's a hate crime. It's right or it's wrong all across the bored or it means nothing. Hitler was right about many things, not for sure, but no one is wrong all the time. Heil..
    So modern Nazis believe that Hitler was right about some things. Modern Nazis believe that desegragation laws are a bad thing, and that these laws unduly impose upon their freedoms, and that in practice they often are applied unfairly in favor of other ethnicities, and unfairly unfavorable toward white people.

    So I guess that contrasts somewhat with the original Nazism, because it appears that modern Nazis don't necessarily think they are the "master race", nor wish to annihilate the other races.

    It's good to see that even the worst dogmas are capable of improving themselves. I'd have to say they still have a long way to go, but at least it's something.
    - Listen to the message of The Holy Prophet of the Mighty God Buga Wuga. His Emissary, Servant, and Humble Treasurer, who doth administer all of his Earthly assets (in case you feel like making a donation.)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    This was the OP:

    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    Could someone explain what a modern Nazi believes? Do they believe in Hitler? Do they believe in God? Who are their enemies and friends.

    Three years ago. So this is thread necromancy, but it's being raised from the dead by someone who genuinely wishes to answer the OP's question.

    I take it that this is what (some) modern Nazis believe:

    Quote Originally Posted by tigertank58 View Post
    A modern Nazi follows which ever faith or lack of they wish. Hitler's basic principles are of course our guide but modern life has to worked with. I don't think one race or another should be eliminated, however I don't think whites and blacks should mix. I believe that most peoples would do better if they aren't forced to mix. If a group of whites, blacks or Asians want to live together as a group, let them. Don't tell them that they must let others in to ruin their what ever they would call it. many places in the country do have neighborhoods like this, but only if the group is Whites does the law object. If a black can call another black a "nigger" then so should all be able to. Just try to get an attorney to take a case of of a Negro calling a White guy a cracker or honky ect.. Let me call a Negro a "nigger" and it's a hate crime. It's right or it's wrong all across the bored or it means nothing. Hitler was right about many things, not for sure, but no one is wrong all the time. Heil..
    So modern Nazis believe that Hitler was right about some things. Modern Nazis believe that desegragation laws are a bad thing, and that these laws unduly impose upon their freedoms, and that in practice they often are applied unfairly in favor of other ethnicities, and unfairly unfavorable toward white people.

    So I guess that contrasts somewhat with the original Nazism, because it appears that modern Nazis don't necessarily think they are the "master race", nor wish to annihilate the other races.

    It's good to see that even the worst dogmas are capable of improving themselves. I'd have to say they still have a long way to go, but at least it's something.
    This is a sort of whitewashing, though, that most extremist ideologies do. The KKK says they are white supremacists, but their doctrines state otherwise. Neo Nazis say the same in public forums, but in their own communities and when you look at their goals they are quite clearly white supremacists. You see it in cults, too. Scientology doesn't come out and publicly say their most insane beliefs, either, they keep it for closed doors so they can rope in new members and introduce them to the philosophy gradually.

    Either this poster is not very plugged into mainstream neo-nazi thought, is fairly new/young and is still being roped in so hasn't been exposed to many members/their philosophies, or he's intentionally refraining from saying the extent of his beliefs so as to seem more palatable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,504
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    This was the OP:

    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    Could someone explain what a modern Nazi believes? Do they believe in Hitler? Do they believe in God? Who are their enemies and friends.

    Three years ago. So this is thread necromancy, but it's being raised from the dead by someone who genuinely wishes to answer the OP's question.

    I take it that this is what (some) modern Nazis believe:

    Quote Originally Posted by tigertank58 View Post
    A modern Nazi follows which ever faith or lack of they wish. Hitler's basic principles are of course our guide but modern life has to worked with. I don't think one race or another should be eliminated, however I don't think whites and blacks should mix. I believe that most peoples would do better if they aren't forced to mix. If a group of whites, blacks or Asians want to live together as a group, let them. Don't tell them that they must let others in to ruin their what ever they would call it. many places in the country do have neighborhoods like this, but only if the group is Whites does the law object. If a black can call another black a "nigger" then so should all be able to. Just try to get an attorney to take a case of of a Negro calling a White guy a cracker or honky ect.. Let me call a Negro a "nigger" and it's a hate crime. It's right or it's wrong all across the bored or it means nothing. Hitler was right about many things, not for sure, but no one is wrong all the time. Heil..
    So modern Nazis believe that Hitler was right about some things. Modern Nazis believe that desegragation laws are a bad thing, and that these laws unduly impose upon their freedoms, and that in practice they often are applied unfairly in favor of other ethnicities, and unfairly unfavorable toward white people.

    So I guess that contrasts somewhat with the original Nazism, because it appears that modern Nazis don't necessarily think they are the "master race", nor wish to annihilate the other races.

    It's good to see that even the worst dogmas are capable of improving themselves. I'd have to say they still have a long way to go, but at least it's something.
    This is a sort of whitewashing, though, that most extremist ideologies do. The KKK says they are white supremacists, but their doctrines state otherwise. Neo Nazis say the same in public forums, but in their own communities and when you look at their goals they are quite clearly white supremacists. You see it in cults, too. Scientology doesn't come out and publicly say their most insane beliefs, either, they keep it for closed doors so they can rope in new members and introduce them to the philosophy gradually.

    Either this poster is not very plugged into mainstream neo-nazi thought, is fairly new/young and is still being roped in so hasn't been exposed to many members/their philosophies, or he's intentionally refraining from saying the extent of his beliefs so as to seem more palatable.
    Nah, it's obvious the poster is an alien. It hails (or rather heils) from Roswell.

    Tinfoil hats all round........
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Darwin justified not only racism but "inevitable" genocide.
    Ah, I see. You said "Darwinism" when you meant "Darwin".

    (As "Darwinism" isn't a thing, it sounded a bit odd)
    "...isn't a thing?" Well, being a noun then it must be a person or place. Would you care to elaborate?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,314
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithridates View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Darwin justified not only racism but "inevitable" genocide.
    Ah, I see. You said "Darwinism" when you meant "Darwin".

    (As "Darwinism" isn't a thing, it sounded a bit odd)
    "...isn't a thing?" Well, being a noun then it must be a person or place. Would you care to elaborate?
    ~ I can help with some of this; 'Charles Darwin' was the author of the now famous book regarding the subject 'Evolution of species'.
    At a time and in a society that generally regarded creation as a truth. Thanks to the lifetime work and study the notion of evolving types of creatures for different environments a theory was tabled..

    To be said to understand and follow the theory of Charles Darwin can be said to be 'Darwinism'. Do be careful not to think of it as a religious doctrine. It's not that. It's science. Did you mean to put this in this thread ? I do not see a connection.

    Maybe we can find the grace to recognise that this Hitler chap may have done and had the odd good idea. The autobahn roading system and maybe even the mechanisation of the German economy.. The rest of it just went to hell in the hand cart..

    That I find a distasteful period of history where some young people today find any of him worthy of praise. Buggered if I can understand that. Might I suggest we can this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Pedant MolōnLabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    That I find a distasteful period of history where some young people today find any of him worthy of praise. Buggered if I can understand that. Might I suggest we can this.
    In times of uncertainty and lack of political direction, somebody with a clear vision is bound to be popular. Popular, that is, with the group of undiscerning people ignorant of history and totally focussed on self-interest. Unfortunately this group seems to include most of the electorate. I lived in Germany in the 1970s, some 30 years after their country was totally devastated as a result of Hitler's policies. In some elections I witnessed, the vote for the neo-nazis was still over 10% of the electorate. Not even very recent history seems to have any effect on the political views of some people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    The only thing he got right was suicide. And he should have done that at least a decade earlier.
    I have read that Hitler may have escaped from Germany to Argentina, with his wife Eva, where they lived out the rest of their lives, and had two daughters. I also read that there is not any hard proof that Hitler had died. Are these claims possible?
    Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere. -- Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,775
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    The only thing he got right was suicide. And he should have done that at least a decade earlier.
    I have read that Hitler may have escaped from Germany to Argentina, with his wife Eva, where they lived out the rest of their lives, and had two daughters. I also read that there is not any hard proof that Hitler had died. Are these claims possible?
    no, that is wholly conspiracy theory.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    The only thing he got right was suicide. And he should have done that at least a decade earlier.
    I have read that Hitler may have escaped from Germany to Argentina, with his wife Eva, where they lived out the rest of their lives, and had two daughters. I also read that there is not any hard proof that Hitler had died. Are these claims possible?
    no, that is wholly conspiracy theory.
    I thought so.
    Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere. -- Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by MolōnLabe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    That I find a distasteful period of history where some young people today find any of him worthy of praise. Buggered if I can understand that. Might I suggest we can this.
    In times of uncertainty and lack of political direction, somebody with a clear vision is bound to be popular. Popular, that is, with the group of undiscerning people ignorant of history and totally focussed on self-interest. Unfortunately this group seems to include most of the electorate. I lived in Germany in the 1970s, some 30 years after their country was totally devastated as a result of Hitler's policies. In some elections I witnessed, the vote for the neo-nazis was still over 10% of the electorate. Not even very recent history seems to have any effect on the political views of some people.
    Hopefully the Neo-Nazi vote is less now than it was when you lived in Germany in the seventies. Hopefully people in Germany who vote Neo-Nazi today will open up their eyes to what happened during WW2, and all the wrongdoings that occurred then, and make more ethical political and social decisions for themselves and others.
    Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere. -- Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,996
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post

    This is a sort of whitewashing, though, that most extremist ideologies do. The KKK says they are white supremacists, but their doctrines state otherwise. Neo Nazis say the same in public forums, but in their own communities and when you look at their goals they are quite clearly white supremacists. You see it in cults, too. Scientology doesn't come out and publicly say their most insane beliefs, either, they keep it for closed doors so they can rope in new members and introduce them to the philosophy gradually.
    Yeah. They kind of do like Fox News calling itself "fair and balanced" even though it is clearly biased toward conservatism, because it presumes to be acting as a balance against someone else's perceived bias.

    It's a clever trick.


    Either this poster is not very plugged into mainstream neo-nazi thought, is fairly new/young and is still being roped in so hasn't been exposed to many members/their philosophies, or he's intentionally refraining from saying the extent of his beliefs so as to seem more palatable.

    I don't know. I've seen a fair number of neo-Nazis who justify their beliefs as simply being "go team". Just like rooting for the local basketball team.

    People look for identity anywhere they can find it. Choosing your own skin color as an identity is kind of a desperate last ditch effort, I think. And I think that whether a person is black, white, orange, or polkadot. It bothers me just as much when black people try to become champions of black identity. All racial identities need to die out. Just be content with "human".
    - Listen to the message of The Holy Prophet of the Mighty God Buga Wuga. His Emissary, Servant, and Humble Treasurer, who doth administer all of his Earthly assets (in case you feel like making a donation.)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    19,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithridates View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Darwin justified not only racism but "inevitable" genocide.
    Ah, I see. You said "Darwinism" when you meant "Darwin".

    (As "Darwinism" isn't a thing, it sounded a bit odd)
    "...isn't a thing?" Well, being a noun then it must be a person or place. Would you care to elaborate?
    I was just being provocative because AA was a rather obvious troll.

    It is largely only Cretinists, trolls and journalists who use "Darwinism" to describe the theory of evolution. The first do it, I think, because they can only understand models of the world based on authority figures. The last do it because they are "writing down" to an audience they don't think is capable of understanding well-presented science (or they lack the ability to present it well). Trolls presumably do it because they think it will annoy people.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,996
    It's really very silly that a theory would bear the name of its founder in the first place, if it no longer resembles the version they've described. Keynesian economics, for example, in its current state, actually arrives sometimes at conclusions that are totally the opposite of those which John Maynard Keynes arrived at. So his name is now being used to describe something that opposes his own ideology.

    Darwin's views clearly allowed the Nazi interpretation. He believed someday humanity would evolve into an even more successful superhuman creature that would supplant its predecessors. Hitler believed that the superhumans had already arrived. It's only a very slight difference in perspective.

    I think modern "Darwinism" proposes that genetic drift will carry the whole species to evolve into something better than its ancestors, so that there never comes to be a pair of species that need to square off.
    Last edited by kojax; November 28th, 2015 at 08:17 PM.
    - Listen to the message of The Holy Prophet of the Mighty God Buga Wuga. His Emissary, Servant, and Humble Treasurer, who doth administer all of his Earthly assets (in case you feel like making a donation.)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    243
    Nobody goes to war expecting to lose.

    Somebody has to.

    Innate superiority on the battlefield consists of having the right means or hardware combined with the right training, strategy, doctrine, and tactics or software. And adequate logistics above all, of course.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,996
    Whereas Hitler was so convinced of his own "master race" ideology, he actually believed he could send his men out with the wrong hardware, traning, strategy, doctrine, and tactics, and still win.

    I think he viewed the whole war as an opportunity to prove his hypothesis And it turned out that the outcome fo the war did demonstrate something about his hypothesis. Not what he was hoping.
    - Listen to the message of The Holy Prophet of the Mighty God Buga Wuga. His Emissary, Servant, and Humble Treasurer, who doth administer all of his Earthly assets (in case you feel like making a donation.)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    243
    At the time he did not know he was wrong about so much. In fact it took quite a while for Allied forces to adapt to the blitzkrieg by most accounts. You are quite right in the case of Hitler expecting the Soviet Russians to be pushovers, however. His declaration of war on the USA was sheer lunacy, also.

    He was weak on the naval side of things and fatally so on counterintelligence, or do you disagree?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    13,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithridates View Post
    In fact it took quite a while for Allied forces to adapt to the blitzkrieg by most accounts.
    Not quite true, since "blitzkrieg" never existed except as a newspaper fiction (and, unfortunately, later as an "excuse").
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithridates View Post
    In fact it took quite a while for Allied forces to adapt to the blitzkrieg by most accounts.
    Not quite true, since "blitzkrieg" never existed except as a newspaper fiction (and, unfortunately, later as an "excuse").
    Really? Maybe you mean an excuse for the Dunkirk evacuation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    13,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithridates View Post
    Really?
    Absolutely really.
    Although the Germans "adopted" the idea - once it had been mooted by a US newspaper - that was done purely for propaganda purposes: it added to their then-current air of invincibility.
    But, even ignoring the fact that the strategies/ tactics involved in so-called blitzkrieg were A) nothing new and B) didn't vary from practices used countless times throughout history, more importantly there are no German references to it (or the concepts claimed for it) in existence as a military "device" at all, and only one single mention of the word in contemporary German military documents.
    The myth has been completely laid to rest[sup1[/sup], not least by a marvellously rigorous work by Karl-Heinz Frieser2.

    Maybe you mean an excuse for the Dunkirk evacuation.
    The fall of France, Dunkirk and several other defeats: it did take quite a time for the Allies to become competent in combined-arms operations.

    1 Well at least for those interested in things like this beyond "fanboy" posturing.
    2 Not on mention Len Deighton starting to put the stake in the heart of the myth way back in 1979.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    243
    Hair splitting over terminology aside, German tactics and strategy in WWII were those of maneuver than the static battles of attrition of WWI and were effective to say the least.

    At least by the time the Germans got to Dunkirk they still had their weapons and equipment, plus those left behind by the BEF.

    What is the revisionist armchair general term for, "caught with their knickers down"?

    The absence of knickers DID facilitate running off with the tail between the legs, so...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    13,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithridates View Post
    Hair splitting over terminology aside, German tactics and strategy in WWII were those of maneuver
    I.e. like a huge number of battles throughout history.
    German strategy and tactics were eminently "traditional" for the most part.
    (In fact Fall Gelb - the invasion of France in 1940 - was essentially a dusted-off copy of the WWI Schlieffen Plan).

    than the static battles of attrition of WWI
    WWI was anomalous in that regard.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    243
    Most definitely. Static battles in antiquity and medieval times were generally sieges. Maneuver warfare was the rule, so why were the Allies so incompetent in the early days of WWII?

    We are wandering more into military than political territory here, sir, but if the moderators are okay with it, play on, I say.

    On a different note, Nazi propaganda of the day characterized enemy groups and ideologies as pathogens, even to the point of portraying little pink triangular germs, presumably homosexual, on microscope slides in posters. Some recent research correlates xenophobia with risk of infection.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    13,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithridates View Post
    so why were the Allies so incompetent in the early days of WWII?
    They simply hadn't realised the pace "allowed" by innovations in use, nor had we implemented those innovations correctly - for example most German tanks had radios, most Allied ones didn't. Thus, despite German tanks being "worse in quality" or merely the "only as good as" Allied ones they could operate more effectively.
    For example the main French commander relied on despatch riders to bring him intelligence - he had no communication facilities (no radios, not even a telephone) in his headquarters.
    (I won't even go into the general French attitude during the war Jamais encore1 - which had a significant effect2).
    We Brits were suckered out position (classically) and moved into Belgium - which collapsed quickly - and couldn't get back into "proper" defensive positions to halt the Germans.
    When we did manage (localised) counter-attacks (Arras being notable) we scared the sh*t out of the Germans.
    But, again, poor communications/ logistics stopped us organising, co-ordinating and supplying a genuinely useful counter offensive.

    1 A number of Brits assigned to liaise with the French thought it meant "Never again will we let the Germans invade France" when in fact it was "Never again will we suffer such casualties as in the last war".
    2 This is not meant in any way to demean the French - when they did fight back they did so magnificently - Stonne being a classic example: one German commander said after the war "There are three battles I'll always remember - Stalingrad, Monte Cassino and Stonne".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #185  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithridates View Post
    Most definitely. Static battles in antiquity and medieval times were generally sieges. Maneuver warfare was the rule, so why were the Allies so incompetent in the early days of WWII?

    We are wandering more into military than political territory here, sir, but if the moderators are okay with it, play on, I say.

    On a different note, Nazi propaganda of the day characterized enemy groups and ideologies as pathogens, even to the point of portraying little pink triangular germs, presumably homosexual, on microscope slides in posters. Some recent research correlates xenophobia with risk of infection.
    When the tank was introduced by the French in WW1, to break the stalemate, mechanized warfare was also introduced into the theater of war.

    In WW2 the speed, armor, and firepower of German tanks greatly helped the Germans to quickly conquer Poland and France.

    Towards the beginning of US involvement in the war in Europe, in 1942, the new power of the tank was used against the Germans in the battle of North Africa. The American and English Allies mobilized their tanks, which were greater in number than, and at least equal in power to, the defending German, Italian, and French tanks, against the Axis powers, and were victorious.
    Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere. -- Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #186  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    243
    Comparing the enemy to microbes is of course, dehumanizing in the extreme.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #187  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithridates View Post
    so why were the Allies so incompetent in the early days of WWII?
    They simply hadn't realised the pace "allowed" by innovations in use, nor had we implemented those innovations correctly - for example most German tanks had radios, most Allied ones didn't. Thus, despite German tanks being "worse in quality" or merely the "only as good as" Allied ones they could operate more effectively. For example the main French commander relied on despatch riders to bring him intelligence - he had no communication facilities (no radios, not even a telephone) in his headquarters. (I won't even go into the general French attitude during the war Jamais encore1 - which had a significant effect2). We Brits were suckered out position (classically) and moved into Belgium - which collapsed quickly - and couldn't get back into "proper" defensive positions to halt the Germans. When we did manage (localised) counter-attacks (Arras being notable) we scared the sh*t out of the Germans. But, again, poor communications/ logistics stopped us organising, co-ordinating and supplying a genuinely useful counter offensive. 1 A number of Brits assigned to liaise with the French thought it meant "Never again will we let the Germans invade France" when in fact it was "Never again will we suffer such casualties as in the last war". 2 This is not meant in any way to demean the French - when they did fight back they did so magnificently - Stonne being a classic example: one German commander said after the war "There are three battles I'll always remember - Stalingrad, Monte Cassino and Stonne".
    Did the speed of advancement of German tanks and troops also have a strong blow on our counter offensive early in the war? I imagine we would have faired a lot better early on against a slower moving enemy.
    Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere. -- Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #188  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    13,780
    Yes.
    Since German communication allowed movement to be co-ordinated they moved, generally, faster1 than the opposition.

    1 Although it's a complete myth that the so-called blitzkrieg produced the fasted military movement rate in history. I forget who managed that, but, from memory it was about double that ever achieved by the panzer divisions and was from the pre-mechanised era.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #189  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Yes.
    Since German communication allowed movement to be co-ordinated they moved, generally, faster1 than the opposition.

    1 Although it's a complete myth that the so-called blitzkrieg produced the fasted military movement rate in history. I forget who managed that, but, from memory it was about double that ever achieved by the panzer divisions and was from the pre-mechanised era.
    So the lightning in lightning warfare(the Blitzkrieg) was not just the tanks, but also the radio. Speedy communication is what was key to speedy German tank and troop movement in early WW2 and onward.
    Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere. -- Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #190  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    10,653
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    So the lightning in lightning warfare(the Blitzkrieg) was not just the tanks, but also the radio. Speedy communication is what was key to speedy German tank and troop movement in early WW2 and onward.
    As explained before there was no Blitzkrieg doctrine.

    And it was no one element or weapon that made maneuver warfare effective again, but mechanical assisted for rapid movement of tanks, planes, and perhaps even more important trucks to carry troops and supplies.
    mmatt9876 likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #191  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    243
    Of course, the British approach in the early days of the War could be characterized as "Sitzkrieg", ararararar...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #192  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithridates View Post
    In fact it took quite a while for Allied forces to adapt to the blitzkrieg by most accounts.
    Not quite true, since "blitzkrieg" never existed except as a newspaper fiction (and, unfortunately, later as an "excuse").

    I think what you mean to say is that the tactic known as "mobile warfare" was never referred to as "blitzkrieg" by the people who used it.

    However, when the newspapers said the word "blitzkrieg", they really meant to say "mobile warfare". And the thing they were describing by saying the word "blitzkrieg" did, in fact, exist. Unfortunately they didn't know the right name.



    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    So the lightning in lightning warfare(the Blitzkrieg) was not just the tanks, but also the radio. Speedy communication is what was key to speedy German tank and troop movement in early WW2 and onward.
    As explained before there was no Blitzkrieg doctrine.

    And it was no one element or weapon that made maneuver warfare effective again, but mechanical assisted for rapid movement of tanks, planes, and perhaps even more important trucks to carry troops and supplies.
    Instead there was Guderian's Mobile Warfare doctrine, which basically consisted of sending Commandos behind enemy lines bypass enemy positions and cause a collapse, then immediately capitalize on it by moving as big a force as possible into the area, and just keep doing that again and again before the enemy can regroup.

    ........something along those lines. I had to settle for a synopsis. I can't read German.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_...Mobile_warfare

    In other words, there was a doctrine virtually identical to blitzkrieg, which was not called "blitzkrieg" by its inventors.


    Things can't exist until they are given a name?
    - Listen to the message of The Holy Prophet of the Mighty God Buga Wuga. His Emissary, Servant, and Humble Treasurer, who doth administer all of his Earthly assets (in case you feel like making a donation.)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #193  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    13,780
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I think what you mean to say is that the tactic known as "mobile warfare" was never referred to as "blitzkrieg" by the people who used it.
    No, that's not what I mean.
    Blitzkrieg was touted as a revolutionary new idea/ tactic - it didn't exist.

    However, when the newspapers said the word "blitzkrieg", they really meant to say "mobile warfare". And the thing they were describing by saying the word "blitzkrieg" did, in fact, exist. Unfortunately they didn't know the right name.
    Uh, right.
    Because "mobile warfare" was previously unheard of?
    Hardly, it's about as old as warfare itself.

    Instead there was Guderian's Mobile Warfare doctrine
    Essentially Fuller's Plan 1919.
    Again, nothing new, nothing revolutionary.

    In other words, there was a doctrine virtually identical to blitzkrieg
    No. There wasn't.
    The Germans used "standard" tried and tested tactics. What gave them most of their effect was the virtual collapse of the French1 and their command structure.
    The Germans were as surprised as the French and British - especially OKW who, more than once, told Rommel and Guderian to halt on the grounds that the pace fortuitously (for them) achieved meant that they were outstripping their supply and reinforcements.

    1 As noted earlier by me: when the Brits and/ or French weren't caught out the Germans received a severely bloody nose that they couldn't have sustained.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; December 3rd, 2015 at 08:16 PM.
    Ascended likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #194  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    So the lightning in lightning warfare(the Blitzkrieg) was not just the tanks, but also the radio. Speedy communication is what was key to speedy German tank and troop movement in early WW2 and onward.
    As explained before there was no Blitzkrieg doctrine.

    And it was no one element or weapon that made maneuver warfare effective again, but mechanical assisted for rapid movement of tanks, planes, and perhaps even more important trucks to carry troops and supplies.
    I was just using the term Blitzkrieg casually to describe the style of German maneuver warfare practiced during the early part of the war. I agree that there is no official Blitzkrieg doctrine.

    The type of maneuver warfare practiced by the Germans during the early stages of WW2, casually called the Blitzkrieg, was in no way a new military concept. The only thing at all new about this type of maneuver warfare was the use of vehicles such as tanks.
    Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere. -- Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #195  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Uh, right.
    Because "mobile warfare" was previously unheard of?
    Hardly, it's about as old as warfare itself.
    Admittedly the name "mobile warfare" wasn't a descriptive name for him to give it, but in his use the term was jargon that meant to describe something more specific than just "being mobile while you fight". The version of it practiced by Guderian was practically impossible prior to the invention of radio. Radio was more crucial than even mechanized weaponry to his strategy.

    Also, German high command didn't entirely subscribe to his set of doctrines. During the invasion of France, he had to justify some of his advances as "reconnaissance in force", because they kept telling him to stop advancing. They finally directly ordered him to stop at Dunkirk, before he could finish off the allied forces there.

    So, was Germany attempting something that could be called a "blitzkrieg"? Not really.

    Was Heinz Guderian attempting something that could be called a "blitzkrieg"? Yeah. Pretty much.



    In other words, there was a doctrine virtually identical to blitzkrieg
    No. There wasn't.
    The Germans used "standard" tried and tested tactics. What gave them most of their effect was the virtual collapse of the French1 and their command structure.
    The Germans were as surprised as the French and British - especially OKW who, more than once, told Rommel and Guderian to halt on the grounds that the pace fortuitously (for them) achieved meant that they were outstripping their supply and reinforcements.
    High command and Heinz Guderian were definitely pursuing different strategies. However, what actually happened on the battlefield ended up getting dictated by the generals on the ground, and so what actually happened was a blitzkrieg. Much to high command's chagrin.

    The newspapers, of course, couldn't very likely have known what was going on in German top secret communications.

    How could they know that "recon in force" was actually against orders?

    1 As noted earlier by me: when the Brits and/ or French weren't caught out the Germans received a severely bloody nose that they couldn't have sustained.
    You mean later in the war, after the Russians had worn them out and depleted their resources?

    The later part of the war also didn't have Guderian in it. He had a big falling out with Hitler (over tactics used in the invasion of Russia), and got put in the back seat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithridates View Post
    so why were the Allies so incompetent in the early days of WWII?
    They simply hadn't realised the pace "allowed" by innovations in use, nor had we implemented those innovations correctly - for example most German tanks had radios, most Allied ones didn't. Thus, despite German tanks being "worse in quality" or merely the "only as good as" Allied ones they could operate more effectively.
    For example the main French commander relied on despatch riders to bring him intelligence - he had no communication facilities (no radios, not even a telephone) in his headquarters.
    The radios were a central component of Guderian's version of "Mobile Warfare". They had them because he absolutely insisted upon it.

    They enabled him not only to move a large force (including artillery and other essential logistics) into the openings his commandos created, but also to set up and begin fighting quickly. Merely moving them there fast would have been useless. They'd be sitting ducks if they didn't immediately get into formation and begin coordinating their defenses (not intending to say anything demeaning about ducks).

    He had the ability to directly speak with the commander of any tank in his battalion, and a dedicated member of the crew of each tank assigned purely as a radio operator.
    - Listen to the message of The Holy Prophet of the Mighty God Buga Wuga. His Emissary, Servant, and Humble Treasurer, who doth administer all of his Earthly assets (in case you feel like making a donation.)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #196  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    13,780
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Was Heinz Guderian attempting something that could be called a "blitzkrieg"? Yeah. Pretty much.
    No, all he was doing was pushing his luck.
    Fortunately (for him) it held.

    You mean later in the war, after the Russians had worn them out and depleted their resources?
    Neither of the examples I gave have anything to do with "later" OR the Russians.
    I'm talking about during the battle for France.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #197  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,996
    You just don't want to see the beauty of the plan, do you? Because Guderian, with his radios, could set up and begin attacking almost immediately upon enterin a new area of the battlefield, while his allies that weren't making efficient use of radio needed time to get set up whenever they moved, he could chase a retreating army and clobber them the whole way.

    Leaving his supply chain behind was a risk, but a pretty small one. The troops don't get hungry if you're done fighting before dinner (or before the rations in the backpacks run out). And if he had needed to retreat due to running short on ammo or fuel, he could probably move his whole army back to his supply line before his opponent was ready to mount any kind of counteroffensive.

    If his enemies had been making equally efficient use of radio, though, the plan probably wouldn't have worked. He was capitalizing on an advantage. "Blitzkrieg" only makes sense as a tactic if you are actually able to move faster (or with better coordination) than your enemy.
    Last edited by kojax; December 4th, 2015 at 06:22 PM.
    - Listen to the message of The Holy Prophet of the Mighty God Buga Wuga. His Emissary, Servant, and Humble Treasurer, who doth administer all of his Earthly assets (in case you feel like making a donation.)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #198  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    13,780
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    You just don't want to see the beauty of the plan, do you?
    There was no plan.

    Leaving his supply chain behind was a risk, but a pretty small one. The troops don't get hungry if you're done fighting before dinner (or before the rations in the backpacks run out). And if he had needed to retreat due to running short on ammo or fuel, he could probably move his whole army back to his supply line before his opponent was ready to mount any kind of counteroffensive.
    If his enemies had been making equally efficient use of radio, though, the plan probably wouldn't have worked. He was capitalizing on an advantage. "Blitzkrieg" only makes sense as a tactic if you are actually able to move faster (or with better coordination) than your enemy.
    So basically you're claiming that "blitzkrieg" was just pushing your luck and getting away with it.
    Again, that's nothing new in warfare.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #199  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post

    Leaving his supply chain behind was a risk, but a pretty small one. The troops don't get hungry if you're done fighting before dinner (or before the rations in the backpacks run out). And if he had needed to retreat due to running short on ammo or fuel, he could probably move his whole army back to his supply line before his opponent was ready to mount any kind of counteroffensive.
    If his enemies had been making equally efficient use of radio, though, the plan probably wouldn't have worked. He was capitalizing on an advantage. "Blitzkrieg" only makes sense as a tactic if you are actually able to move faster (or with better coordination) than your enemy.
    So basically you're claiming that "blitzkrieg" was just pushing your luck and getting away with it.
    Again, that's nothing new in warfare.
    It's not luck if the odds are in your favor.
    - Listen to the message of The Holy Prophet of the Mighty God Buga Wuga. His Emissary, Servant, and Humble Treasurer, who doth administer all of his Earthly assets (in case you feel like making a donation.)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #200  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    13,780
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It's not luck if the odds are in your favor.
    Ah, right.
    Advancing into enemy territory as a spearhead - i.e. essentially surrounded in all directions except directly behind - against "better", and more, tanks and greater numbers of enemy troops while leaving your logistics train behind is "odds in your favour".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Ancient vs Modern
    By zinjanthropos in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 30th, 2011, 09:09 PM
  2. Modern Technology vs. Modern Humanism
    By mjw123 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 18th, 2011, 12:51 PM
  3. Modern Technology vs. Modern Humanism
    By mjw123 in forum Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 8th, 2011, 04:36 AM
  4. Modern Technology vs. Modern Humanism
    By mjw123 in forum Criminology and Forensic Science
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 7th, 2011, 12:54 PM
  5. Modern Technology vs. Modern Humanism
    By mjw123 in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 7th, 2011, 12:53 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •