I’m sure Hilberg would have been thrilled to have such a mature intellectual giant on his side.

The NA were very pro-Hitler.”

Doesn’t matter. In their own documents(the NA handbook), they said that while they drew a lot of inspiration from National Socialist Germany, they were not a National Socialist or “Nazi” organization. Therefore, by your bizarre logic, it would be wrong to call them a neo-Nazi organization.

“I said “The possibility that the Nazi plan for their treatment of the ‘Jewish Question’ allegedly changed – A VIEW THAT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING AS WIDELY AGREED UPON BY HISTORIANS AS YOU APPARENTLY THINK – does not change the point.”

I’m sorry but you’re wrong, the functionalist argument won the debate, and as I said, the Nazis planned to expel or exterminate large groups of other people as well. And this doesn’t change the point, which is that a person need not advocate the exact same thing as Nazis to be likened to Nazis.

“You were acting like the funcionalist/intentionalist debate did not exist, not me. You, a non-historian, were the one presenting one side of that debate as indisputable fact, not me.”

You are also a non-historian, and if I was acting like the functionalist-intentionalist debate didn’t exist, then WHY did I tell you to look up ‘functionalist-intentionalist DEBATE?’

“But again, even if the functionalist position were indisputably true, it’s beside the point we’re talking about.”

Not really, since you seem to imply that if Geller doesn’t advocate the mass extermination of Muslims, she can’t be compared to Nazis.

Look Ian, we all know you. You don’t like Muslims. You hold many of the same prejudices as Geller. Perhaps Geller’s insanity is a little distasteful to you, especially given her links to the far-right, but for whatever reason you don’t like people connecting Islamophobia with Nazism because to some extent you agree with the former. You’re saying a lot more than you think.

As for intentionalist versus functionalist, though I am in the former camp, I do not think Hitler’s “intent” was limited to Jews at all.

Ruslan,

The NA were very pro-Hitler.

I said “The possibility that the Nazi plan for their treatment of the ‘Jewish Question’ allegedly changed – A VIEW THAT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING AS WIDELY AGREED UPON BY HISTORIANS AS YOU APPARENTLY THINK – does not change the point.”

Emphasis added.

You were acting like the funcionalist/intentionalist debate did not exist, not me. You, a non-historian, were the one presenting one side of that debate as indisputable fact, not me.

But again, even if the functionalist position were indisputably true, it’s beside the point we’re talking about.

Unless the point is your intellectual insecurity.

You know Reynardine, I’m thinking that swimming with hammerhead sharks is definitely much safer than being around human hammerheads

No, this is an idiotic idea which makes no sense. For one thing, I’m not calling her a Nazi, I was merely comparing her rhetoric to that of the Nazis. While the term is often over-used today, it doesn’t mean that it should only be used when someone overtly claims to be a “National Socialist.” There are plenty of other movements which deny being “Nazis” while clearly adhering to their ideology. The National Alliance was a perfect example.

“Yes, the Nazis did think they were going to kill all Jews around the world. No, it was not realistic. But then again, Nazis aren’t really known for being realistic, are they?”

You have to tell me how you managed to read the minds of so many dead people at once.

“The possibility that the Nazi plan for their treatment of the “Jewish Question” allegedly changed – a view that is not even close to being as widely agreed upon by historians as you apparently think – does not change the point. The point was the Jews were targeted for total extinction, thus giving the term “Nazi” a particular power when used against a Jew. Whether this attempted extinction was started in 1933 or 1941 is a bit beside the point, don’t you think?”

Actually you’re wrong. Look up the “Functionalist vs. intentionalist debate” on the Holocaust.

There is, however, a ‘concern troll.’ And his name is Ian. And he managed to derail the thread just as handily as Funinsnow.

I don’t have to try to claim Ruslan’s summation of my point is a straw man. It’s clear to any unbiased person of average English skills. Basically, my argument is that someone should not call someone a Nazi unless they are a national socialist. It’s a practice held by all decent people and I thought it was more self-evident than it apparently is.

Yes, the Nazis did think they were going to kill all Jews around the world. No, it was not realistic. But then again, Nazis aren’t really known for being realistic, are they?

The possibility that the Nazi plan for their treatment of the “Jewish Question” allegedly changed – a view that is not even close to being as widely agreed upon by historians as you apparently think – does not change the point. The point was the Jews were targeted for total extinction, thus giving the term “Nazi” a particular power when used against a Jew. Whether this attempted extinction was started in 1933 or 1941 is a bit beside the point, don’t you think?

And “what groups say this?” A quick trip through the Intelligence Files would do everyone some good.

I myself have a professional admiration for sharks, though many years out of the business. A hammerhead shark, though, has better sense than to use its head in the way human Hammerheads do. Maybe that’s because its brain is larger.

unless you mean “hammerhead” as in someone who repeatedly hits himself in the head with a hammer. then carry on :)

What groups say this? Why should I compare her to those other groups when anti-Semites have used that exact same tactic against Jews?

“Jews were exterminated in areas outside the Lebensram.”

Your point being? The Germans originally planned only to expel Jews from their territory(aside from those they found in the invasion of the USSR, which were to be executed under the “Kommissar Order”). As it became clear that they could lose the war, they started considering ways to wipe out Jews in Europe as well.

“Reread what I said: “Although mass murders of Roma, Poles, Serbs, and allied POWs took place, Jews were targeted not simply for a genocide, but for a Holocaust, a COMPLETE extermination.” Poles were not targeted for complete extermination.”

This is semantic nonsense, because I think it’s safe to say that Nazi Germany didn’t realistically think that they could eliminate all Jews in say, the USA, Latin America, or China. Likewise, they attempted to eradicate all Jews, Ukrainians, Belorussians, and Muscovite Russians from the territory they wanted. Obviously this would not have totally wiped them from the face of the earth but it would have caused somewhere around 80 million deaths, not counting what would happen when a few million refugees are suddenly forced beyond the Ural mountains. So can one then claim that Generalplan Ost was not a plan of mass genocide and eradication of Soviet citizens(including Jews) west of the Urals? Of course not.

“Yes, you could just as easily say that.

You could VERY easily say that.”

Yes, if one were a moron one could very easily say that. Basically your argument amounts to “Geller doesn’t say EVERYTHING the Nazis said about Jews about Muslims, ergo she needs to be compared to someone else.” Sorry but that is nonsense, and don’t even try to claim that this is a strawman.

Ayn Rand thought like a Nazi. Pamela Geller thinks like a Nazi. That’s what swastika envy does to people. Get over it, Hammerhead.

And honestly, Ayn Rand? Now we’re saying Ayn Rand is a Nazi? The woman who compared the social safety net to concentration camps is now a national socialist? Does the term “Nazi” mean anything to you, or is it just a label you stick on people you don’t like (especially the Jewish ones)?

“[I]t was claimed that the Talmud instructed Jews to lie about the content of their book”

You could be talking about many other groups in this statement, but you do not compare Geller to these other groups.

“The German ‘Lebensraum’ was to be cleansed of all non-German groups which were said to be the cause of “blood poisoning.”

Jews were exterminated in areas outside the Lebensram.

Reread what I said: “Although mass murders of Roma, Poles, Serbs, and allied POWs took place, Jews were targeted not simply for a genocide, but for a Holocaust, a COMPLETE extermination.” Poles were not targeted for complete extermination.

“You could just as easily say that unless someone espouses a ‘blood and soil romantic view of the countryside and independent peasant farmers, you can’t compare them to Nazis.”

Yes, you could just as easily say that.

You could VERY easily say that.

Read “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” or any other good history of the period, Ian, and you will see that Russians were destined for extermination, while Czechs and Poles were to have all tall, blond, blue-eyed children with dainty noses stolen from them and raised as Germans, while intellectuals were to be liquidated and the remaining population, where not actually worked to death, were to be subjected to disculturization and linguicide and thoroughly Helotized. Yes, even the co-opted and stupidly spiteful Slovak Hammerheads. That’s what happens to Hammerheads. Meanwhile, if Pamela Geller, like Ayn Rand, happens to be a Jewish woman with swastika envy, we can’t help it if she’s as meanly given to brainless self-destruction as a Slovak. We can only warn you to pull yourself up before you wind up in the same place.

In that case the last example of Islamic imperialism was the Ottoman Empire, which typically did not force populations to convert to Islam. Way to stay up-to-date.

“Ruslan, one of the way you said Nazi antisemitism and Geller’s views were similar is that they both accused the targeted group of lying.”

No, I said that they claim to use the Holy books of Islam to “prove” their point, as anti-Semites do with the Talmud, and then claim that anyone who tries to explain these points in another, non-sinister way, must be lying as these holy books command them to. As I said, it was claimed that the Talmud instructed Jews to lie about the content of their book, so if anyone were to dispute, for example, the claim that the Talmud legalizes sex with children under three,(a common myth still used today) they could be dismissed because they were compelled by their religion to lie about it. In the case of Islam, terms like “Taqiyya” or “stealth jihad” are invoked.

“Non-Jews died during WWII, but only the Jews were targeted for total destruction. Although mass murders of Roma, Poles, Serbs, and allied POWs took place, Jews were targeted not simply for a genocide, but for a Holocaust, a complete extermination.”

Incorrect. The German “Lebensraum” was to be cleansed of all non-German groups which were said to be the cause of “blood poisoning.” Hence, the Wartheland in Poland was cleansed of Polish residents while other Polish areas were not. The reason being that the Germans decided to resettle the area with German farmers. A much larger genocide was planned for an area of the USSR up to the so-called “Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line”, which generally includes Ukraine, Belarus, and European Russia. The population was to be exterminated, starved, or forced East of that line, with the only remnants being used up for slave labor and sterilized. It was in the interest of carrying out this plan that a large amount of Jews killed in the Holocaust were destroyed mostly by the firing squads of the Einsatzgruppen.

The need to kill Jews and other undesirables more quickly, along with the realization at the end of 1941 that Germany could lose the war, prompted the process by which the Nazis developed a means to mass exterminate people on a greater scale.

“Thus, unless someone calls for the total extermination of an entire ethnic or racial group, calling them a Nazi is flat out wrong and exploitative.”

Sorry, but this is stupid. You could just as easily say that unless someone espouses a “blood and soil” romantic view of the countryside and independent peasant farmers, you can’t compare them to Nazis. It’s not all or nothing.

” We saw this every other week with Glenn Beck, it’s no better when done by the left.”

Mr. Beck accused leftists, real and imagined, of being Nazis. Ms. Geller is a right-winger. It makes far sense to compare a right-wing extremist to another group of right-wing extremists.

And the bars around here are too loud to debate about anything but football.

im·pe·ri·al·ism
noun
1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

Islamic imperialism clearly qualifies. Someone who uses “imperialism” to refer to the West only, is using the term wrong.

Ruslan, one of the way you said Nazi antisemitism and Geller’s views were similar is that they both accused the targeted group of lying. You said other things, but I was responding to that particular point. Once again, anything Geller has said could be compared to ANY hate group or hate ideology. Out of all these, you only comared this Jewish woman to Nazis, either out of antisemitism or out of sheer unoriginality.

“Ian specializes in diverting the discussion whenever the subject is anti-Muslim bigotry.”

One post later.

“Just like you don’t give a damn about Muslim civilians getting bombed in Afghanistan.”

I look forward to CM swiftly censuring Ruslan for changing the subject and strawmaning me. I will not hold by breath, however.

Non-Jews died during WWII, but only the Jews were targeted for total destruction. Although mass murders of Roma, Poles, Serbs, and allied POWs took place, Jews were targeted not simply for a genocide, but for a Holocaust, a complete extermination.

Thus, unless someone calls for the total extermination of an entire ethnic or racial group, calling them a Nazi is flat out wrong and exploitative. Geller has engaged in despicable apologetics for mass murderers, but until I hear calls for the literal killing of an entire ethnic or racial group, the term just doesn’t fit. We saw this every other week with Glenn Beck, it’s no better when done by the left.

Be more creative.

The only person speaking from privilege here is you. We know you don’t like Muslims so you’ll defend any Islamophobic nutcase you can.

” I suppose Islamists who convert Westerners to Islam are also Nazis. ”

Oops, looks like someone doesn’t know what the definition of imperialism is!

“Given Islamist support for Nazis in the past, it is surly a better fit than calling a Jew one.”

Ever since the neo-Nazi poster Jason left, this has to be the stupidest comment on here. For one thing, several religions voiced massive support for the Nazis, the other being Christianity and Tibetan Buddhism. Pamela Geller propagandizes on behalf of actual imperialism. She could be compared to any number of low-level Nazi propagandists.

“Does accusing a group of being liars automatically make one a Nazi? Many other hate groups accuse entire races of lying or accuse gay people of lying. The homosexual agenda, Aztlan, not to mention the other antisemitic conspiracy theories by groups other than Nazis.”

I like how you actually make an effort to be extra dense. See you know I didn’t just say that Nazis accused Jews of lying, but you pretend that’s what I said. That’s because you can’t form a coherent, logical argument.

“The very reason why bringing Nazis is an issue is that they murdered 6 million Jews. The murder of 6 million people is not a “drama fest”.”

First this is a question of propaganda style and tactics, not copying the actions of the Nazis. Second, the Nazis killed far more non-Jews for the same reason(extermination based on “racial” grounds), but of course you don’t give a damn about them. Just like you don’t give a damn about Muslim civilians getting bombed in Afghanistan.

Ruslan, Ian pulled that “Which imperialism?” line with me on a previous thread, as if anti-Muslim bigotry in 2012 somehow could have fueled, say, Babylonian imperialism in the 8th century bce. I expect he wins a few points with it in barroom debates, where the meaninglessness of his point is less likely to be noticed.