The New Neo-Nazi's

Lam, Read "Berlin", by Anthony Beevor, it's pretty much what happened as the Red Army steamrollered the fatherland. They were no better than the Germans.Mark

Lam, A bit like blaming all Japanese for Pearl Harbour? All Frenchman because of Napoleon? Or all Muslims for the twin towers? All Americans for MacDonalds? All Brits for Bloody Sunday (among others). All Irish for the Guildford & Birmingham bombings? & so on, etc. etc.It is childish, & you do know it. Many Germans were to blame, but by no means all of them that suffered were culpable. It's a sad fact that we all pigeonhole groups of our fellow humans with the attributes of their worst contemporaries.The guilty & innocent suffered in WWII as I am to the stars in the sky.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-27-2004]

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Willow, I strongly disagree with this statement.The military success of the Third Reich was due almost entirely due to the military, rather than Nazi pseudo politico-military musings. The real "brains" were generals like Guderian, Manstein, Rommel et al, in the formulation & effective practice of a new weapon, the Panzerwaffe, to unleash a new kind of war; blitzkrieg. The as yet unheard of combined arms tactics, & the weapons they used was entirely due to the military establishment thinking out of the box, attempting to provide solutions to the trench warfare tactics that had strangled them in the Great War.In a very real sense it was the Nazi's that lost the war, not the Wehrmacht. In the expansive phase of the war the Wehrmacht achieved only parity of numbers, & in many cases was outnumbered in critical areas such as tanks, aircraft, & infantry. They prevailed because of good military planning & the surprise achieved because of their new forged weapon. It took massive superiority in numbers to drive them back. In every case I can think of where the Germans were defeated, the Nazi leadership exercised a political rationale on what should have been decisions being based purely on military considerations. Had Hitler not intervened the Wehrmacht would not have been trapped at Stalingrad, the Crimea, The Kurland, etc. They would not have forced themselves into a fortress mentality, & subsequently lost vast numbers of troops through Hitlers sheer bloody mindedness. The German Army lost more men in Army Group Center's defence in the summer of '44 than at Stalingrad because of this.Given the initial condition where the Germans attacked the Soviet Union, they were capable of winning, or at the very least of stalling the front indefinately. A fact that is often forgotten is that Germany had a greater industrial base than Russia, but because of political considerations they refused to mobilise it until it was too late.Most obviously, the decision to attack Russia in the first place was Hitlers, most historians agree this was not a "brainy" move. The decision to declare war on the US was Hitlers, the only single nation with a larger industrial base than Germany; not good. The Nazi leaderships mistakes & miscalculations are well documented & legion, the credit for the Third Reichs successes (apart from the territorial gains prior to Sept '39) entirely belongs to the military & not the political "brains".The Nazis were thugs in uniform. What passed for their intelligence was suppressed by their arrogant superiority & unwarranted, anti-intellectual race hatred.Even if we ignore the above, your point that Nazis intelligence is related to the Third Reich's initial succes is further tarnished by the fact that in the end they lost the bloody thing! As I point out, the Nazis actions in WWII are more indicative of crass stupidity than a high level of intelligence.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-28-2004]

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

WILLOW, You are committing a fallacy of composition. I know many intelligent & highly educated people & not one of them is anti-semitic, or even politically far-right, for that matter, let alone Nazi. In fact, one of them is a Marxist (the real one, not the Soviet caricature, I'm told). You are assuming because some educated people are anti-semitic, they all are. They are not, not even close, & thus your argument vanishes in a puff of logic & an inability to quantify your claim.I think this thread is an insightful comment on you, on what you want to be true, rather than what you can show. An interesting view into your psyche.I could argue with as much force & logical efficacy as yourself that teacher training leads to paedophilia.[added by edit] To remove the logical fallacy you need to be able to show, on a per capita basis that people with degrees or higher are more likely to be antisemitic/evil than those without. If you can't do this then there is no reason to accept your argument as it lacks the required levels of logical & evidential support.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-29-2004]

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

WT, An utterly substanceless post.Show on a per capita basis that people with degrees or higher (or uni professors, if you so choose) display a higher incidence of anti-semitism than anyone else. If you can't do this you have no point to make whatsoever.Put up or shut up. Your definition would more closely fit a London Taxi driver, as anyone who has become their captive audience for 15 minutes would know. What a silly definition of fascism. That definition applies to any political group you care to mention. The point is that if there is no higher incidence of anti-semitism in the educated as opposed to the general masses then you have no point to make. If you are assuming because you have observed anti-semitism in some uni professors that anti-semitism is rife in that group, then you are indeed making a fallacy of composition.If you are not saying that, then you have made no point at all.I could equally point out some smelly oiks who hate the Yids from a local pub, & conclude with exactly the same logical force (ie - none) that a lack of educational credentials leads to exactly the same thing that you say a professorship does.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

WT, That educated people can & do do shitty things cannot be argued against, but the point still stands, you haven't shown that they show the same proclivity to do so as the non-educated.You need to show on a per capita basis that educated people are as anti-semitic as the non-educated. If you can't do this you have no point to make. What you have is an unsupported opinion.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-30-2004]

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Cynic,Then I have misunderstood & apologise.Mark