Author Topic:  (Read 3642 times)

Offline brycemus

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 32437
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2009, 03:55:40 PM »
if you want to go with "sheer number" of people murdered under the regime than absolutely the Sickle is as bad as the Swastika.  I happen to think it is regardless.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by brycemus »
Corey Clark: 2016-2017 Hawkeye Hammer

Offline Tripster

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 5553
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #16 on: April 27, 2009, 04:06:06 PM »
I think the main difference is that Nazi Germany was destroyed and never saw any other leader than Hitler.  Soviet Union went on and did get much better with regard to human rights after Stalin died.  If we discuss hammer and sickle post 1960 it wasn't too bad no?  Say Hitler won the war and established a paradise for all in Europe with further leaders very capable and building a nation equal to ours.  We would be saying Hitler was a good man even though he broke a few eggs.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Tripster »

Offline usnlt7676

  • All-American
  • ****
  • Posts: 953
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #17 on: April 27, 2009, 04:11:57 PM »
Quote from: "Tripster"
I think the main difference is that Nazi Germany was destroyed and never saw any other leader than Hitler.  Soviet Union went on and did get much better with regard to human rights after Stalin died.  If we discuss hammer and sickle post 1960 it wasn't too bad no?  Say Hitler won the war and established a paradise for all in Europe with further leaders very capable and building a nation equal to ours.  We would be saying Hitler was a good man even though he broke a few eggs.
I think the people executed in the USSR or sent to Siberia after 1960 would disagree with you.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by usnlt7676 »

Offline ViseGrip

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 34876
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2009, 05:34:28 PM »
Quote from: "ac1998"
This is an odd topic.  We're trying to decide which genocide was worse?  Or under whose regime would you want to live?  Not often do you find people voting for Stalin.

My answer would be, I guess it would matter what your religion and background is as to who was worse (as a Jew at least I'd have a chance under Stalin).  The Soviets were far less discriminating, in that they didn't really care who they killed.

The Nazis were much more sytematic in their killings.  Mostly being Jews, but also handicapped, gypsys, homosexuals, etc.  They were also far bolder with their technique.  Staving someone to death is horrible, but rounding up entire communities in box cars and leading them to gas chambers has a certain level of conpempt for life rarely seen in history.
Maybe I misunderstand your observation, but you seem to find Hitler more odious than Stalin because he focused on certain groups whereas Stalin and Mao while they killed far more, did it less discriminately. At some point shear volume should count for more than mere issues of motivation.

I think this is an education issue.

The horrors of Nazism is well documented in history books but those of communism are virtually ignored. Very few today understand WHY the Collectivization was carried out. (To intimidate the agricultural class and reward the industrial class) Or especially  why so many good loyal communists were rounded up and sent to the Gulags in Siberia (they needed cheap labor for the gold mines) or why so many died there (merely it was cheaper to to bring more in than feed and clothe the ones they had).

If one starves his dog to death, he can be rightly charged with a crime, but if he takes it to a vet to be "euthanized " thats perfectly acceptable.  Now, I know dogs arent human and I dont mean it to be taken as a comparison, but just to make a point.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by ViseGrip »
"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all that want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics" -Thomas Sowell

Offline ViseGrip

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 34876
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2009, 05:35:52 PM »
Quote from: "buck"
The USSR sports machine was the greatest thing to come out of their 70+ years in existence.  Simply awesome in virtually every sport.  I have a hammer & sickle T-Shirt and do get the occassional sideways glance of disapproval.
Why not applaud their efficiency in killing as well?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by ViseGrip »
"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all that want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics" -Thomas Sowell

Offline ViseGrip

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 34876
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #20 on: April 27, 2009, 05:42:17 PM »
Quote from: "Tripster"
I think the main difference is that Nazi Germany was destroyed and never saw any other leader than Hitler.  Soviet Union went on and did get much better with regard to human rights after Stalin died.  If we discuss hammer and sickle post 1960 it wasn't too bad no?  Say Hitler won the war and established a paradise for all in Europe with further leaders very capable and building a nation equal to ours.  We would be saying Hitler was a good man even though he broke a few eggs.
"If we discuss hammer and sickle post 1960 it wasn't too bad no?"
YES!
I suggest you do some research into "The Great Leap Forward" and "The Cultural Revolution". After that, look up Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge's "Killing Fields" they make Stalin look like an amateur.

Its not really your fault Tripster that you have this perception. Its a failure of the modern American education system. And I think its not by mistake.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by ViseGrip »
"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all that want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics" -Thomas Sowell

Offline AKHvywght

  • All-American
  • ****
  • Posts: 1010
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #21 on: April 27, 2009, 06:30:11 PM »
Quote from: "ViseGrip"
Quote from: "AKHvywght"
The swastika represents a far more hateful brand of totalitarianism. It has continued to be a symbol even after WWII embraced by hate groups.

In fact, it seems to me that the hammer and sickle get a bad rap mostly because the methods of the swastika were embraced, in order to bring about the revolution and maintain power, rather than staying true to the fundamentals of the hammer and sickle's conception. 

The hammer and sickle were paraded as a symbol for one thing, while in practice the swastika may have been more appropriate to represent the realities of what was happening.
The methods actually were entirely different.

The Nazis used direct murder (ie the gas chambers etc.) and the Communists to a great degree employed purposeful starvation (ie the Collectivization, the Gulags and Great Leap Forward).

Granted the motivation of the communists may have been altruistically slightly more palatable (relatively speaking only) but the end results give them the Genocide Championship hands down.

Discuss
The Swastika still holds as a potent symbol for hatred.  It still has meaning because of the Aryan connection.

The Hammer and Sickle does not hold the same power that it used to.  

Besides which, is it that we all have been undereducated in the atrocities of the USSR, or is it that you were subject to a lot of cold war propaganda and are living in the past.  

The eagle and the stars and stripes joined forces with the hammer and sickle to stop the swastika in the second world war.  I think that's a big part of the reason that the swastika is considered worse as well.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by AKHvywght »

Offline ViseGrip

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 34876
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2009, 07:47:42 PM »
Quote from: "AKHvywght"
Quote from: "ViseGrip"
Quote from: "AKHvywght"
The swastika represents a far more hateful brand of totalitarianism. It has continued to be a symbol even after WWII embraced by hate groups.

In fact, it seems to me that the hammer and sickle get a bad rap mostly because the methods of the swastika were embraced, in order to bring about the revolution and maintain power, rather than staying true to the fundamentals of the hammer and sickle's conception. 

The hammer and sickle were paraded as a symbol for one thing, while in practice the swastika may have been more appropriate to represent the realities of what was happening.
The methods actually were entirely different.

The Nazis used direct murder (ie the gas chambers etc.) and the Communists to a great degree employed purposeful starvation (ie the Collectivization, the Gulags and Great Leap Forward).

Granted the motivation of the communists may have been altruistically slightly more palatable (relatively speaking only) but the end results give them the Genocide Championship hands down.

Discuss
The Swastika still holds as a potent symbol for hatred.  It still has meaning because of the Aryan connection.

The Hammer and Sickle does not hold the same power that it used to.  

Besides which, is it that we all have been undereducated in the atrocities of the USSR, or is it that you were subject to a lot of cold war propaganda and are living in the past.  

The eagle and the stars and stripes joined forces with the hammer and sickle to stop the swastika in the second world war.  I think that's a big part of the reason that the swastika is considered worse as well.
You make a good point about former alliances, but exactly what cold war propaganda do you refer?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by ViseGrip »
"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all that want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics" -Thomas Sowell

Offline bigokieguy

  • Section Champ
  • *
  • Posts: 151
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #23 on: April 28, 2009, 01:02:01 AM »
Nazism had the racist aspect.As I've stated in the past I believe Communism and Nazism are peas in the same collectivist socialist pod. Nazism was destroyed by outside forces and currently holds no political power.Self described Communist states in contrast still exist.Communism is the greater threat today imho since it's adherents still believe it could work.

Something is either odious or it's not in my opinion. Both Fascism and Communism are therefore equally odious.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by bigokieguy »

Offline ViseGrip

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 34876
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #24 on: April 28, 2009, 11:05:20 AM »
Quote from: "bigokieguy"
Nazism had the racist aspect.As I've stated in the past I believe Communism and Nazism are peas in the same collectivist socialist pod. Nazism was destroyed by outside forces and currently holds no political power.Self described Communist states in contrast still exist.Communism is the greater threat today imho since it's adherents still believe it could work.

Something is either odious or it's not in my opinion. Both Fascism and Communism are therefore equally odious.
The reason I brought all this up was a controversy here in Oklahoma. Recently the OK state Senate voted unanimously to make some Flaming Lips song our official "rock 'n' roll" song (as if they have nothing better to do). Well a few days later there was a ceremony at the state capital to honor this sacred event and one of the band members wore a t-shirt with a big hammer and sickle blazened across the front.
<a href='http://photos.newsok.com/2/showimage/561864/gallery_photo' target='_blank'>http://photos.newsok.com/2/showimage/561864/gallery_photo[/url]

Well, after seeing this spectacle some members of the House voted AGAINST the bill naming the song when it came up for a vote in their chamber.

Our local paper published an editorial ridiculing the Representatives who voted against.

My question to those who think those Reps were wrong is. Would you feel the same way if that dolt had worn a swastika instead?

Personally I thought it was extremely disrespectful to wear that shirt flaunting a system so diametrically opposed and antithetical to the institution and government that was honoring them.

If you ask me...  he shoulda been bi*ch-slapped.



Discuss
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by ViseGrip »
"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all that want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics" -Thomas Sowell

Offline AKHvywght

  • All-American
  • ****
  • Posts: 1010
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #25 on: April 28, 2009, 11:11:39 AM »
The Flaming Lips are crazy man...I don't know why you expected any less.

It comes with the territory.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by AKHvywght »