Is "Civil Disobedience" a legitimate tool to effect government change?

[phattonez]

Should slaves have been brought here? No, I don't think there should have been slavery in this country, ever.

Should Africans have been brought here? If they were brought here and treated the same as everyone else, then I don't think anyone would have a problem.

Outside of slavery they never would have come, especially since immigration at the time was limited only to whites.

 

[Tigerace117]

The Brits carpet bombed cities, and the Soviets mass raped Germany. Both sides were disgusting, and we should have had no part in it.



We get it. You think that all of the whites should die.

The Nazis were carpet bombing Spanish cities years before the Second World War even started. Oh, and then there was the Blitz. Hmm. Guess it’s a-ok when Adolf and his boys do it but suddenly a problem when white nationalists start getting back what they dished out.

I hate to burst your faux outrage bubble but the Wehrmacht and co mass raped—-and worse—-it’s way east. Payback is a bitch.

No, I think actively supporting an evil government means you lose the right to complain when your sins catch up to you.

 

[Tigerace117]

Outside of slavery they never would have come, especially since immigration at the time was limited only to whites.

Actually, by the early years of independence there were increasing numbers of free African Americans in the country—-not to mention, of course, that even without slavery there would have been plenty of opportunity to get to the Americas whether as a sailor, craftsman, or what have you.

 

[phattonez]

The Nazis were carpet bombing Spanish cities years before the Second World War even started. Oh, and then there was the Blitz. Hmm. Guess it’s a-ok when Adolf and his boys do it but suddenly a problem when white nationalists start getting back what they dished out.

What in my post made you think that I was trying to portray the Nazis as good guys. I specifically said that both sides were disgusting.

I hate to burst your faux outrage bubble but the Wehrmacht and co mass raped—-and worse—-it’s way east. Payback is a bitch.

Again, as I said, both sides were disgusting. It's just hard to see, as you suggest, that the Communists were better.

No, I think actively supporting an evil government means you lose the right to complain when your sins catch up to you.

All whites in South Africa supported the violent repression of blacks? Really?

 

[phattonez]

Actually, by the early years of independence there were increasing numbers of free African Americans in the country—-not to mention, of course, that even without slavery there would have been plenty of opportunity to get to the Americas whether as a sailor, craftsman, or what have you.

1. By what immigration law would they have been allowed to become citizens?
2. Were those blacks former slaves or their descendants?

 

[Tigerace117]

What in my post made you think that I was trying to portray the Nazis as good guys. I specifically said that both sides were disgusting.


Again, as I said, both sides were disgusting. It's just hard to see, as you suggest, that the Communists were better.



All whites in South Africa supported the violent repression of blacks? Really?

Except no, both sides were not “disgusting”. There’s no moral equivalence; it’s not even close. The Axis was far, far worse than the Allies; nothing we did even came remotely close to the Nazi murder of millions of innocent people.

Again, no, the Allies were far, far better than the Axis. There was no moral equivalence, despite your sympathy for the white nationalist thugs.

Enough of them did to keep apartheid going for decades.

 

[Tigerace117]

1. By what immigration law would they have been allowed to become citizens?
2. Were those blacks former slaves or their descendants?

A law drawn up in this hypothetical, no slavery, universe

No, because in this hypothetical there isn’t any slavery.

 

[Jredbaron96]

The Brits carpet bombed cities,

Yes, they did. They carpet bombed cities that belonged to a nation that basically invented terror bombing, and almost immediately when WW2 began set themselves apart by strafing columns of civilian refugees with dive bombers. Poor Germans.

and the Soviets mass raped Germany.

I got a great idea on how Germany could've avoided it: Not invading the USSR and conducting a campaign of mass rape and murder between 1941-1943.

Both sides were disgusting,

Sure, if you operate under the childish delusion that one side actively committing industrial scale genocide, up-to and including systematic rape, murder and destruction of towns and villages causing the deaths of ~15 million people in the USSR alone, and the other side having a problem controlling some of their troops who occasionally raped people or murdered their prisoners, somehow is a morally equivalent comparison.

 

[phattonez]

Except no, both sides were not “disgusting”. There’s no moral equivalence; it’s not even close. The Axis was far, far worse than the Allies; nothing we did even came remotely close to the Nazi murder of millions of innocent people.

The tens of thousands plus killed in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, would all beg to differ.

Again, no, the Allies were far, far better than the Axis. There was no moral equivalence, despite your sympathy for the white nationalist thugs.

Soviets literally killed millions of their own citizens and invaded countries. Why do you claim that they were far better than Nazis?

Enough of them did to keep apartheid going for decades.

Collective guilt? Sure sounds bigoted to me.

 

[phattonez]

Yes, they did. They carpet bombed cities that belonged to a nation that basically invented terror bombing, and almost immediately when WW2 began set themselves apart by strafing columns of civilian refugees with dive bombers. Poor Germans.

Absolutely poor Germans. German civilians didn't deserve to be targeted.

I got a great idea on how Germany could've avoided it: Not invading the USSR and conducting a campaign of mass rape and murder between 1941-1943.

Another one who thinks that groups deserve mass and indiscriminate mass rape and slaughter.

Sure, if you operate under the childish delusion that one side actively committing industrial scale genocide, up-to and including systematic rape, murder and destruction of towns and villages causing the deaths of ~15 million people in the USSR alone, and the other side having a problem controlling some of their troops who occasionally raped people or murdered their prisoners, somehow is a morally equivalent comparison.

That's unbelievably dishonest and misleading of you. The Soviets carried out the largest mass rape in history. 2 million German women were raped by Soviet soldiers. But sure, go ahead and call it "occasional." This is disgusting.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Absolutely poor Germans. German civilians didn't deserve to be targeted.

Neither did Polish citizens, French, Belgians, Danish, British or Soviets. But for some reason their suffering is ignored by you.

Another one who thinks that groups deserve mass and indiscriminate mass rape and slaughter.

Another one who doesn't understand basic action-reaction principles.

That's unbelievably dishonest and misleading of you. The Soviets carried out the largest mass rape in history. 2 million German women were raped by Soviet soldiers. But sure, go ahead and call it "occasional." This is disgusting.

Or you could cut your bull****. 2 Million German women were not raped by the Soviets. That number is based on the ridiculously inaccurate algorithms used by Helke Zander and Barbara Johr in their book "BeFreier und Befreite" to produce a grossly lopsided number. It is another example of how simply bad research perpetuates in the historical community and in the media because no one bothers to check it.

What's disgusting is your ignorant refusal to even comprehend the idea that MAYBE if Nazi Germany hadn't invaded half of Europe and killed millions of innocent people, WW2 wouldn't have been so terrible.

 

[phattonez]

Neither did Polish citizens, French, Belgians, Danish, British or Soviets. But for some reason their suffering is ignored by you.

Who's ignoring it? Who's defending Nazi violence?

Or you could cut your bull****. 2 Million German women were not raped by the Soviets. That number is based on the ridiculously inaccurate algorithms used by Helke Zander and Barbara Johr in their book "BeFreier und Befreite" to produce a grossly lopsided number. It is another example of how simply bad research perpetuates in the historical community and in the media because no one bothers to check it.

What's disgusting is your ignorant refusal to even comprehend the idea that MAYBE if Nazi Germany hadn't invaded half of Europe and killed millions of innocent people, WW2 wouldn't have been so terrible.

If that number is exaggerated then you're going to have to provide some evidence. Even outlets like NPR and the Chicago Tribune use the number.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106687768
Berliners recall Red Army atrocities - tribunedigital-chicagotribune

 

[Tigerace117]

The tens of thousands plus killed in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, would all beg to differ.



Soviets literally killed millions of their own citizens and invaded countries. Why do you claim that they were far better than Nazis?



Collective guilt? Sure sounds bigoted to me.

Here’s a hint—maybe if the Germans and Japanese didn’t want to be bombed, they shouldn’t have brutally attacked their neighbors. The nuclear strikes saved millions of Allied personnel and Japanese civilians. Again, the Allies did nothing even remotely close to as bad as what the Axis routinely did.

The Nazis killed millions of their own and other countries’ citizens, brutally conquered half of Europe, committed dozens of war crimes and did so in a tiny fraction of the time.

Considering you support white supremacism, your opinion isn’t relevant.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Who's ignoring it? Who's defending Nazi violence?

Every time you claim the Allies were just as bad as the Nazis, you suggesting a moral equivalent between what they did.

Since this point seems to be so beyond your comprehension, I'll ask you this: Would the British have bombed German cities, would the Soviets have raped German women, had Nazi Germany not started the Second World War?

If that number is exaggerated then you're going to have to provide some evidence. Even outlets like NPR and the Chicago Tribune use the number.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106687768
Berliners recall Red Army atrocities - tribunedigital-chicagotribune

None of these are actually evidence of the number you claim. They all just say "Historians say that 2 million German women were raped by Soviet troops". With no actual data.

Let me give you a better example. This is from Barbara Johr's work, which I previously pointed out was heavily flawed, but even so doesn't meet the numbers postulated by some historians:

1. Official statistics have 23124 newborns in Berlin for the period from September 1945 to August 1946. According to the clinic "Empress Augusta Victoria" fathers of 5% of newborns were Russians. 5% from 23124 is 1156.
2. 90% of women who become pregnant as the result of the rape have an abortion: it means that the number of pregnancies was 1156 * 10 = 11560 women.
3. Only 20% of the women became pregnant after rape, therefore number of raped women is 11560 * 5 = 57800 women.
4. At the time 600,000 women of childbearing age (18 to 45 years) lived in Berlin. 57800/600000 = 9.5% of them were raped.
5. In addition 800 thousand of women between 14-18 years and older than 45 years lived in the Berlin . If we assume that 9.5% of this group had been raped too, it gives 73 3000 additional victims (36650 at 4.75% rape rate)
6. Thus, about 94 450 to 131 100 girls and women from 1.4 million total in Berlin were raped between the spring and autumn of 1945 with an average of more than 110,000."

By Johr's own calculation (which are very simplistic and crude), she estimates that 110,000 women were raped by Soviet soldiers. A bit short of 2 million, eh?

And certainly short of the number of Soviet women and girls raped by German soldiers, which became such a problem that German officers set up appointed brothels to avoid venereal diseases. Granted, we'll probably never know for sure, since the Germans tended to kill the women after they had raped them.

 

[phattonez]

Here’s a hint—maybe if the Germans and Japanese didn’t want to be bombed, they shouldn’t have brutally attacked their neighbors.

German women and children did that? When?

The nuclear strikes saved millions of Allied personnel and Japanese civilians. Again, the Allies did nothing even remotely close to as bad as what the Axis routinely did.

Other than Stalin killing millions of his own citizens, Churchill bombing Germany indiscriminately, and Truman destroying entire cities. Sure.

The Nazis killed millions of their own and other countries’ citizens, brutally conquered half of Europe, committed dozens of war crimes and did so in a tiny fraction of the time.

And what Stalin did was a nice conquering?

 

[phattonez]

Every time you claim the Allies were just as bad as the Nazis, you suggesting a moral equivalent between what they did.

Since this point seems to be so beyond your comprehension, I'll ask you this: Would the British have bombed German cities, would the Soviets have raped German women, had Nazi Germany not started the Second World War?

The British? Probably not. The Soviets? Given that they had no problem also invading countries and doing much the same thing, probably.

None of these are actually evidence of the number you claim. They all just say "Historians say that 2 million German women were raped by Soviet troops". With no actual data.

Let me give you a better example. This is from Barbara Johr's work, which I previously pointed out was heavily flawed, but even so doesn't meet the numbers postulated by some historians:

1. Official statistics have 23124 newborns in Berlin for the period from September 1945 to August 1946. According to the clinic "Empress Augusta Victoria" fathers of 5% of newborns were Russians. 5% from 23124 is 1156.
2. 90% of women who become pregnant as the result of the rape have an abortion: it means that the number of pregnancies was 1156 * 10 = 11560 women.
3. Only 20% of the women became pregnant after rape, therefore number of raped women is 11560 * 5 = 57800 women.
4. At the time 600,000 women of childbearing age (18 to 45 years) lived in Berlin. 57800/600000 = 9.5% of them were raped.
5. In addition 800 thousand of women between 14-18 years and older than 45 years lived in the Berlin . If we assume that 9.5% of this group had been raped too, it gives 73 3000 additional victims (36650 at 4.75% rape rate)
6. Thus, about 94 450 to 131 100 girls and women from 1.4 million total in Berlin were raped between the spring and autumn of 1945 with an average of more than 110,000."

By Johr's own calculation (which are very simplistic and crude), she estimates that 110,000 women were raped by Soviet soldiers. A bit short of 2 million, eh?

And certainly short of the number of Soviet women and girls raped by German soldiers, which became such a problem that German officers set up appointed brothels to avoid venereal diseases. Granted, we'll probably never know for sure, since the Germans tended to kill the women after they had raped them.

The numbers fall apart on the 1st point. She's basing everything off of the number of babies born in Berlin. What's the problem? Berlin was starved at the time. The amount of food Germans were eating at the time wasn't enough to bring a pregnancy to term. As such, the rates of women become impregnated lower significantly, the rate of births lowers significantly, and the number of medical abortions falls significantly.

So yes, her numbers are off significantly. It's incredibly difficult to get and remain pregnant when you have only 1400 calories per day.

 

[Jredbaron96]

The British? Probably not. The Soviets? Given that they had no problem also invading countries and doing much the same thing, probably.

Except the Soviets never did anything on the same scale as the Germans did. There was no industrial, systematic extermination of entire populations. There were famines and deaths yes, but these were the results of poor planning and a genuine shortage of resources. Not a directly ordained and fanatically carried out policy of destruction. We maintain that distinction today, between manslaughter and pre-meditated murder.

The numbers fall apart on the 1st point. She's basing everything off of the number of babies born in Berlin. What's the problem? Berlin was starved at the time. The amount of food Germans were eating at the time wasn't enough to bring a pregnancy to term. As such, the rates of women become impregnated lower significantly, the rate of births lowers significantly, and the number of medical abortions falls significantly.

Not exactly. Berlin was a priority for food shipments across the Third Reich, even while many other Germany cities faced severe shortages. The black market was also most active in Berlin. These numbers are based on a national level that includes rural and German territory already under siege.

And even so, it's still impossible for 2 million German women to have been raped in Berlin, when there were only 1.4 million German women in Berlin at the time.

 

[phattonez]

Except the Soviets never did anything on the same scale as the Germans did. There was no industrial, systematic extermination of entire populations. There were famines and deaths yes, but these were the results of poor planning and a genuine shortage of resources. Not a directly ordained and fanatically carried out policy of destruction. We maintain that distinction today, between manslaughter and pre-meditated murder.

The Holodomor was planned. Stalin literally refused aid and ordered any food stolen from the population.

Not exactly. Berlin was a priority for food shipments across the Third Reich, even while many other Germany cities faced severe shortages. The black market was also most active in Berlin. These numbers are based on a national level that includes rural and German territory already under siege.

By 1945 there weren't any other areas left to give Berlin food. That number, especially the last one, was the reality for German women.

And even so, it's still impossible for 2 million German women to have been raped in Berlin, when there were only 1.4 million German women in Berlin at the time.

2 million German women total, not just in Berlin. I never said just Berlin.

 

[Jredbaron96]

The Holodomor was planned. Stalin literally refused aid and ordered any food stolen from the population.

The Holodomor was the result of a general Soviet famine between 1932-1933. Stalin bears responsibility for it as the leader of the country, but the entire thing was the result of incompetence and ignorance, not an engineered annihilation.

There are plenty of reasons to characterize Stalin as a monster. But at least be accurate about it.

By 1945 there weren't any other areas left to give Berlin food. That number, especially the last one, was the reality for German women.

Germany still held a significant chunk of territory by the end of the war.

2 million German women total, not just in Berlin. I never said just Berlin.

But that's what your sources say. We may never know the exact number, but we know rape did happen, just like we know you'll continue to insist that the Germans were the only victims of the war.

 

[Jredbaron96]

snip

In the end, it all comes back to the same bull****.

You'd much rather complain about how bad the Allies were because they fought a war to stop the Nazis rather then place the blame on Nazi Germany for starting the war in the ****ing first place.

 

[Tigerace117]

German women and children did that? When?



Other than Stalin killing millions of his own citizens, Churchill bombing Germany indiscriminately, and Truman destroying entire cities. Sure.



And what Stalin did was a nice conquering?

Yes, actually, they did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_SS_Panzer_Division_Hitlerjugend

More than once. But I forgot, you are totally fine with all sorts of atrocities when white nationalists commit them, but you scream bloody murder when they get back even a fraction of the evil they put out into the world.

Truman saved millions with the nuclear strikes, Churchill paid back your heroes for the atrocities they'd been committing for years, and ole Adolf was far worse than even Stalin--- unless, like you, one is a Nazi worshipping white nationalist.

Nazi crimes made the Soviets pale in comparison. They even turned the Ukranians, who despised Stalin, against them. Do you have any idea how incredibly evil you have to be to make a ethnic group which had just gone through a massive famine support their oppressors?

 

[phattonez]

The Holodomor was the result of a general Soviet famine between 1932-1933. Stalin bears responsibility for it as the leader of the country, but the entire thing was the result of incompetence and ignorance, not an engineered annihilation.

There are plenty of reasons to characterize Stalin as a monster. But at least be accurate about it.

How do you characterize theft of food from peasants in the middle of a famine as anything but murder?

Germany still held a significant chunk of territory by the end of the war.

And with foreign blockades and massive bombing raids, much of it was in shambles.

But that's what your sources say. We may never know the exact number, but we know rape did happen, just like we know you'll continue to insist that the Germans were the only victims of the war.

When have I ever insisted that? I'm just challenging the dopey idea that Germans didn't suffer, or Germans had it coming, or other such nonsense. No civilians ever deserve to be bombed, raped, or targeted for extermination.

 

[phattonez]

In the end, it all comes back to the same bull****.

You'd much rather complain about how bad the Allies were because they fought a war to stop the Nazis rather then place the blame on Nazi Germany for starting the war in the ****ing first place.

No, I'd rather complain about allying with a genocidal maniac like Stalin.

 

[phattonez]

Yes, actually, they did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_SS_Panzer_Division_Hitlerjugend

People literally driving tanks toward you aren't civilians, even if they are younger than 18.

More than once. But I forgot, you are totally fine with all sorts of atrocities when white nationalists commit them, but you scream bloody murder when they get back even a fraction of the evil they put out into the world.

No, the Nazis were brutal as well, especially on the Eastern Front, and interning Jews and others in concentration camps, not just death camps, is atrocious. Like I said to Jredbaron, my issue is with the excusing of atrocities committed against Germans.

Truman saved millions with the nuclear strikes, Churchill paid back your heroes for the atrocities they'd been committing for years, and ole Adolf was far worse than even Stalin--- unless, like you, one is a Nazi worshipping white nationalist.

Churchill did more than payback. 60,000 British civilians were killed in air raids, an awful number. How many Germans were killed in air raids? 350,000-650,000. Churchill (and especially Arthur Harris) was a monster.

Nazi crimes made the Soviets pale in comparison. They even turned the Ukranians, who despised Stalin, against them. Do you have any idea how incredibly evil you have to be to make a ethnic group which had just gone through a massive famine support their oppressors?

Did they? Ukranians collaborated with Nazis, did they not? And how many Ukranians were compelled to support the Red Army because of barrier troops?

 

[Jredbaron96]

No, I'd rather complain about allying with a genocidal maniac like Stalin.

And given as your described alternative is just letting Nazi Germany carry out it's plans for total annihilation of those they deem racially inferior, I see plenty of reason to criticize your standing.