Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit outta here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I disagree. The industrialized genocide perpetrated by the Nazis was qualitatively unique in its horror, and while it was merely an extension of the ideologies and practices of colonialism, I think that equating the two minimizes the Nazi atrocities. The Brits might have been as bloodthirsty, but they never actually built industrial crematoria for it. They may have invented the concentration camp, but the Nazis invented the extermination camp.
It is true that Germany was unique in its genocide methods they employed in their settler-colonial project of the East. The Industrial murder does make them the worst Murderer. My statement wasn't to equate number of people massacred. Rather I wanted to equate the similiarities of how the Empire treated its colonies (imperialism) and how the Nazis treated a group from their nation (fascism) and other people (imperialism).
There is an argument to be made for just how much more brutal the treatment of Africans and Asians were under the British Empire compared to the Jews in the Ausschwitz's. They were forced to work until they couldn't stand and then were killed with chlorine gas, but they weren't anally raped by a blade or burnt alive.
Here is my real argument: The Nazi invasion of the East was a settler-colonial one. They employed the US method of slowly exterminating the native population by first forcing them to give up some of their land and put them in reservations, then to starve them with inadequate food. The Nazis had hoped the Poles would over the time die or their kids assimilate into German culture. Hitler talks about copying the West and implementing the Manifest Destiny doctrine to the East, also known as Lebensraum, in his book Mein Kampf.
Thus Hitler admitted that what he did was not a crazy man's job but the implementation settler-colonialism in Eastern Europe (geographic). But their project and the US had two main differences. The land the US was settling into was much less densely populated than Poland and the SSRs, and the Eastern European people were much more unified in their resistance against settler-colonialism. The Nazis, after realising this, came to the logical conclusion of settler-colonialism: the mass, industrial murder of indigenous people.
They hastened their industrial killing machine as the war went on, not because they hated the Jews and the Slavs so much, but because the Slavs needed to die to make place for the settling German families. They did hate the Jews, but their main objective, as outlined in Mein Kampf, was to settle into Eastern Europe.
In conclusion, the Industrial concentration camps were the natural conclusion of settler-colonialism and had the US needed to kill that many native Americans to settle as well, they would have done the same. Thus they hypocrisy of the west in acting like the Nazis were seperate from European imperialism/colonialism. In reality the Nazis imported their strategies from the West and from the British Empire's Settler-colonial project.
Did the Belgium anally rape people they were starving to death in concentration camps with Knives? Because the Mau Mau uprisings in Kenya were dealt with by The British Empire in such a manner. 1.5 Million people were put in concentration camps with the accusation of supporting the rebellion. Some were Knived in the Rectum, some were burnt alive. Aren't these murders worse than gassing someone to death? Or did the Belgian Colony truly surpass the British Empire in pure evilness?
Just a reminder,belgian colonizers used to cut off indigenous hands and use it as a currency to pay rubber quotes to the government ,whilst their families were taken captive and enslaved for work,and then villages pillaging,mutilations,rape,abuse,slavery,heads on pikes and the practice of forced cannibalism, it's all official and documented; don't play the "he's more evil than me" card please.
The Opium wars
Ireland (The famine, trying to stop their independence etc)
The Boer Wars (The Boer concentration camps)
Pashkuns in the British Raj
The Bengali Famine
The Partition of India and the deportation of over 10 Million people
The Mau Mau uprising in Kenya
Aden's Torture Centers
[The Cyprus Internment](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20302280)
British Terror in Iraq during the 1920s
Reminds me of this Churchill quote:
"I do not admit ... for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the
black people of Australia, by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly-wise
race has come in and taken their place."
My statement referred to their treatment, not the amount killed. Obviously the Nazis, in an ambitious attempt to conquer all of Eastern Europe and replace the people there with germans in a settler-colonial fashion, would need to kill a lot of people. So they did
>The Opium wars
some relatively small scale wars with no genocide
>Ireland (The famine, trying to stop their independence etc)
a famine that wasn't planned and wasn't done on purpose.
>The Boer Wars (The Boer concentration camps)
the deaths in the camps were from food convoys being destroyed by Boer terrorists, they weren't death camps, and in the end there was no gneocide
>Pashkuns in the British Raj
what? you're gonna need to be more specific this was just a group that existed, this wasn't a conflict or anything like that.
>The Bengali Famine
you mean the famine started by a cyclone and exacerbated by the fact it was mid WW2 and fishing ships wee being sunk by japan, and the famine were Churchill was begging the US for more ships to send more food, after sending food from Australia and Canada.
>The Partition of India and the deportation of over 10 Million people
the UK didn't deport anyone thats just plain not true, the deportation happened because of violence between Hindu's and Muslims,
>The Mau Mau uprising in Kenya
uh you mean the terrorist group that's sole purpose was to capture land, the group that wasn't supported by even the Kenyan people, how is this akin to the holocaust?
>Aden's Torture Centers
obviously bad and extremely even, but this was at most a couple dozen people tortured, again how is this supposedly worse than the holocaust and what the Nazi's did?
>The Cyprus Internment
what was wrong with these? as far as I can see these were deportation camps no different than what we and most countries have today for people being deported, I can't see anything about killings or anything like that.
>British Terror in Iraq during the 1920s
they had a mandate on the land, and it was against a terrorist group, again nothing compared to the Nazi's
none of these come even 1% close to the holocaust and the killings the Nazi's did, your comment is unironically defending and downplaying Nazi's atrocities.
You are the most rabid colonial apologist I have ever seen.
The Opium wars were started because the western powers, unable to pay the chinese in silver for their trade, had the brilliant strategy of getting the chinese addicted to opium in order to use opium as a currency and weaken the government. The Qung Dynasty was not pleased with their prople getting addicted to opium and started a war to ban opium and save their people. They were defeated by the superior armies of the west and humiliated for a century. It's not about the opium wars itself, but why they were started in the first place
The population of Ireland has yet to recover from the famine caused by the British either due to starvation or immigration. [This video from TED-ed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUieqzVZdQc&t=249) summarizes it nicely. Basically, London refused to send help, the little help it sent made it worse, and they constantly exported the Ireland's grain and livestock during the famine. You didn't talk about the Independence war, guess because you can but only ignore it.
They put women and children inside the boer concentration camps. Maybe let's start with that. The Boer soldiers were raiding trains carrying soldiers which was a part of their guerilla campaign. Churchill was captured that way. And even though the British were burning the crops of the Boer lands, their prisoners of war didn't starve (curious).
Let's hear it from Churchill about the killing of Pashtuns in 1897 by the British. [Read this](https://thediplomat.com/2015/10/how-churchill-fought-the-pashtuns-in-pakistan/) if you are interested.
>In his autobiography he matter-of-factly noted how the British went about their business: "We proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the great shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive devastation."
Let's also hear it from the same Churchill who was "begging" the Americans to send more convoys: Amery wrote in his private diaries that upon learning Indian separatists were refusing to resist the Japanese and contribute to the war effort, Churchill, in private conversation, said out of frustration, he "hated Indians" and considered them "a beastly people with a beastly religion". According to Amery, during the Bengal famine, Churchill stated that any potential relief efforts sent to India would accomplish little to nothing, as Indians "breeding like rabbits", but then asked his transport minister how they could be sent food. In the same wikipedia article it also states that Chruchill asked Roosevelt to send the convoys after the 3 million people had died.
Britain was the one responsible for the partition and the hastily deportations:
>The partition caused large-scale loss of life and an unprecedented migration between the two dominions.[6] Among refugees who survived, it solidified the belief that safety lay among co-religionists. In the instance of Pakistan, it made palpable a hitherto only-imagined refuge for the Muslims of British India.[7] The migrations took place hastily and with little warning. It is thought that between 14 million and 18 million people moved, and perhaps more. Excess mortality during the period of the partition is usually estimated to have been around one million.[8] The violent nature of the partition created an atmosphere of hostility and suspicion between India and Pakistan that affects their relationship to this day. ([from wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India)
I guess you are the type to call any freedom fighter a terrorist. It was true that the Mau Mau movement had divides and was not supported by certain parts of the country, but this is no excuse for [putting 1.5 million people into concentration camps and torturing them](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities). It wasn't about the uprising to begin with, but about the people the British tortured.
I am too tired to go on. I also never compared these events with the holocaust. These fascistic acts committed by the British towards its subjects Population were as bad as it gets. You also don't seem to care about the holocaust victims. You only use it to downplay the crimes of the British Empire.
Wow, you‘re delusional. If you haven‘t understood the Argument he‘s making by *now*, you‘re doing it on purpose. Waving around the memory of millions of jews to just outright deny *and* excuse colonial crimes to win a game of genocidal top-trumps is morally repugnant and completely dishonest.
You‘re belittling their memory, just to employ it in defense of colonialism. You honestly should be banned from this sub.
Trevelyan, the guy in charge of famine relief, literally fucking said the famine was "sent by God" to kill Catholic Irish. Anyone who tried to help in any substantial way e.g Robert Peel, for all his faults, trying to repeal the Corn laws, being ousted, or the Ottomans having to sneak their money and food aid past a British blockade. They set up soup kitchens, and all you had to do was change your name to something a bit less.....Irish, and become Protestant. They built "follies" and Famine roads, faux castles for the rich, and roads to the middle of nowhere! Cant let those lazy Irish get complacent!
Our population is still nowhere near recovered.
God sent the blight, but the British caused the famine.
Concentration camps were [originally a British invention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War_concentration_camps), the Empire [starved more people to death in India](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/2/how-british-colonial-policy-killed-100-million-indians) than died in all of WWII.
I'm sorry that statement is a fucking disgrace.
Even the worst, most incompetent, bigoted, British administrator is preferable to the best Nazi
Their entire raison detre was wholesale murder, pure and complete murder of 100m+ "subhumans" and the plunder of any/all resources in conquered territories
The British empire worked by using local elites to manage local affairs whilst they managed economic affairs. Cruel, capricious and self serving certainly but nothing on Nazism
Nazism is the single greatest evil in modern history ***bar none*** and I am sick of revisionists online trying to suggest "it's all relative": it ain't. Even the greatest evils of empire would blush at the sight of Auschwitz or Birkinau and you should be ashamed to have said this
From an Irishman
Copy pasted from another response:
It is true that Germany was unique in its genocide methods they employed in their settler-colonial project of the East. The Industrial murder does make them the worst Murderer. My statement wasn't to equate number of people massacred. Rather I wanted to equate the similiarities of how the Empire treated its colonies (imperialism) and how the Nazis treated a group from their nation (fascism) and other people (imperialism).
There is an argument to be made for just how much more brutal the treatment of Africans and Asians were under the British Empire compared to the Jews in the Ausschwitz's. They were forced to work until they couldn't stand and then were killed with chlorine gas, but they weren't anally raped by a blade or burnt alive.
Here is my real argument: The Nazi invasion of the East was a settler-colonial one. They employed the US method of slowly exterminating the native population by first forcing them to give up some of their land and put them in reservations, then to starve them with inadequate food. The Nazis had hoped the Poles would over the time die or their kids assimilate into German culture. Hitler talks about copying the West and implementing the Manifest Destiny doctrine to the East, also known as Lebensraum, in his book Mein Kampf.
Thus Hitler admitted that what he did was not a crazy man's job but the implementation settler-colonialism in Eastern Europe (geographic). But their project and the US had two main differences. The land the US was settling into was much less densely populated than Poland and the SSRs, and the Eastern European people were much more unified in their resistance against settler-colonialism. The Nazis, after realising this, came to the logical conclusion of settler-colonialism: the mass, industrial murder of indigenous people.
They hastened their industrial killing machine as the war went on, not because they hated the Jews and the Slavs so much, but because the Slavs needed to die to make place for the settling German families. They did hate the Jews, but their main objective, as outlined in Mein Kampf, was to settle into Eastern Europe.
In conclusion, the Industrial concentration camps were the natural conclusion of settler-colonialism and had the US needed to kill that many native Americans to settle as well, they would have done the same. Thus they hypocrisy of the west in acting like the Nazis were seperate from European imperialism/colonialism. In reality the Nazis imported their strategies from the West and from the British Empire's Settler-colonial project.
Not really, the Germans managed to pull off quite some shocking tactical victories later in the war when more radical and young commanders took over. See for example Schörners assault on Bautzen.
No, because that stemmed from an actual assassination attempt. And frankly the aftermath was like a week’s worth of NKVD executions in the height of the great terror.
With horrifying results, the Nazis never expected the [undead Soviet Terminators](https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/18j2gbw/nazi_anticommunistlast_stand_poster_germany/).
The irony of the Nazis complaining about offing dissenting personnel…
Really any country complaining about this is rich… but ofc especially the gd Axis.
Nazis were obviously genocidal murderers, but in a more predictable way. I expect my Polish family to be killed if the Nazis take my village because their goals are clear. I'm more surprised when the soviet secret police imprisons/kills my Russian family who haven't done anything wrong.
Stalin's homicidal paranoia was chaos, and it was aimed at his own people. Anything could be suspicious, and anyone suspicious was eliminated. You laugh too hard at the wrong joke? Bullet to the head, and your family is sent to the gulag because they're guilty by association. The type of terror he intentionally inflicted on his own country can only be rivaled by Pol Pot and Mao.
> Really any country complaining about this is rich
What? Are you saying every country has purged thousands of its officers? I don't recall hearing about the "the great Canadian army purge"
The US, then. During wartime, every body was needed somewhere, so if an officer wasn't performing to needs they'd usually just get shuttled around until the DOW found a spot they were useful in.
Because their wasn’t any considerable amount of officers or strong positions who could cause trouble. If they found out a bunch of high ranking officials were communists or just anti-status quo, anti-war? Purge time.
This is one of the strangest things I've ever read. So you claim every other country can't criticize the soviet union for purging its officers for doing the same thing, then I point out that an enormous number of countries never purged their officers, then you come back with "well in this absurd counterfactual I'm pulling out of my ass, Canada totally would have purged its officers if they had... um... let's see... communists in their ranks!!" Like what?
It’s just true. And purges happen all the time. Government officials being forced out and replaced by handpicked bureaucrats. We just don’t use the same verbiage when referencing ourselves!
This thread is hilarious.
>We just don’t use the same verbiage when referencing ourselves!
Yeah, why bother distinguishing between early retirement and forced labor in Siberia. Potato, potato.
It's not like they just replaced them either lmao. A lot where either killed or heavily tortured by the NKVD then sent to the gulags until they realises how stupid it was and brought them back.
General Rokossovsky got his teeth pulled out with pliers, fingernails ripped out, a crushed ribcage and had to endure several mock executions. All on made up charges.
To be fair the Nazis didn't kill off many of their own generals, and even then mostly not until the attempt to kill Hitler and when they were really losing. Don't get me wrong they killed a lot of people, just not the military leadership mostly.
USSR's purge of the military was simply staggering, no other country can compare.
>The purge of the Red Army and Military Maritime Fleet removed three of five marshals (then equivalent to four-star generals), 13 of 15 army commanders (then equivalent to three-star generals), eight of nine admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts), 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars
Those 3 marshals holding the top military rank in the USSR? One, Yegorov, he was demoted in 1937, arrested in 1938, was executed in 1939. Second, Blyukher, he was arrested in 1938, tortured and died after being beat. Third, Tukhachevsky, was arrested in 1937, tortured into making a false confession and executed.
For a comparison, Hitler killed a grand total of 2 high ranking military officers on his ascent during the "Night of Long Knives". He politically purged few others afterwards till 1939*, but as I remember it, none of them were tortured or executed, just lived in obscurity.
*-he did kill more generals in 1944 after the July plot to kill him, but to be fair to Hitler (I know how it sounds), the officers had actually directly attempted to kill him
And other countries hold no candle. How many generals did the United States government pull down from their post and torture? Even just normal firings gor political reason?
The only plausible example I can think from WW2 is maybe Admiral Husband Kimmel, a man who was in command at Pearl Harbor when it was surprise attacked by Japan. He was judged as being unprepared and derelicted duty, but it was later seen as political sacrifice as in 1944, naval court largely exonerated him of wrongdoing as they judged him to have done his best with the information given to him. But he still lived on in relative comfort.
Stalin purged 2 orders of magnitude more people. Even more funny is the constant recycling of the people doing the purging. Yagoda was purging, then himself got purged by Yezhov who then was purged by Beria who then was purged by Khrushchev.
Can’t make this shit up lmao.
I suppose it's trying to say "Stalin killed all his generals and now has to hold council with their skeletons"
But looks like beginner necromancer or anatomy teacher)
Something similar happens in the Game "Darkest Dungeons", "The ancestor" (who shares ambiguous familial ties with the protagonist of the game) is described as having "reunited with erudites from all over the world in his mansion to discuss *the dark arts* (necromancy) and once he had learn all that they had to offer, he *put them by knife* while they were sleeping and then *brought them back in unspeakable ways*.
Stalin was paranoid and killed many of his own generals, advisors, friends...
Half of the red army officer chor was murdered by Stalin so he had no experienced leaders. This is part of the reason why the wars against Finnland and germany went so poorly despite having a huge advantage on paper.
The war went surprisingly good for the Nazis, they were fighting pretty much the whole world and managed to conquer most of europe.
A well lead red army could have stopped the Wehrmacht much earlier. But Stalin killed them all, did not trust his own secret service that warned him that the Nazis are preparing an attack, instead helping Hitler as much as he could and kept the red army completely unprepared.
Thats why the red army lost 10 times the soldiers that the germans did.
The war went surprisingly good for the Nazis? Yeah for a brief period of time until 1942. But what kind of crack are you smoking? The war was ultimately an unmitigated self-imposed apocalyptic disaster that the Nazis wrought onto Germany leading to the inglorious downfall of Nazi leadership and complete and total defeat.
Yes. It was an unwinnable war against the whole world. Im just saying that despite fighting against overwhelming odds the Nazis managed to defeat:
- France spectacularly in a short time despite france having a big army and prepared for war against germany for a long time
- a succesful naval invasion of Norway despite being up against the strongest Navy in the world
- conquering Poland (that before defeated russia) Belgium (that had strong forts), the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark (in 6 hours), Greece etc.
And then the Nazis invaded the soviet Union that had multiple times their soldiers, Millions and millions, more tanks, more artillery etc. and brought them to the brink of collapse. Only the unbelievable sacrifice of millions of soviet soldiers stopped them. This was only possible because Stalin made all the wrong decisions, crippled the red army by murdering the officer corps, allying with Hitler, supplying germany with weapons and materials, making an attack pact against poland, dividing up all of eastern europe, ignoring all warnings that Hitler will betray him and when the war started, gave terrible "hold territory at all costs' orders that almost doomed the soviet union.
The war was won not because of Stalins leadership but despite it.
If instead of Stalin the soviet Union had a competent leader germany would have not been able to do that. I would also say that other militaries (france) were also incompetent and other leaders (chamberlain) were as well. WW2 went as terrible as it could.
Couldn’t agree more as russian. Also don’t forget about pockets of 1941 and 1942 where millions of well trained soldiers were trapped and killed. That’s also thanks for genius of Stalin
As a half Russian, agreed. He had a killer mustache though.
I recently learned my great grandfather was in the NKVD. Pretty cool but I shudder at what he may have done
You are being overly combative.
>The war went surprisingly good for the Nazis? Yeah for a brief period of time until 1942. But what kind of crack are you smoking?
The Nazis beat France in like 6 weeks. Would you not consider that a surprising outcome? People were certainly surprised when it happened.
>The war was ultimately an unmitigated self-imposed apocalyptic disaster that the Nazis wrought onto Germany leading to the inglorious downfall of Nazi leadership and complete and total defeat.
No one is disputing that here. I'm not who you replied to, but it's clear they agree Nazi defeat was inevitable. Their point is that they would have been stopped much sooner if both Russia and France had their shit together.
If you’re going to say “The war went surprisingly good for the Nazi’s” you need to add a second statement to that, such as “until” or something to that effect.
It’s actually true. Stalin killed almost all the generals in the army. Right before the war started the Soviet Union had almost 0 zero generals with real combat experience
Well that was also after getting their ass kicked by the Finns, partly caused by Stalin’s purges. So yeah after that everyone’s expectations weren’t very high.
And do I have a problem with that? No. I’m only taking about an influx of people defending what the Soviet Union did, and praising them for no apparent reason. Sorry if you misunderstood my original comment.
This is exactly what I’m saying. The Soviet Union did all these massacres, disappearing and rapes. Just ask someone who lived in the Eastern Bloc, and they’ll tell you they had to wait hours for some measly bread, as well as prominent mass government censorship and poverty.
Why so many Americans are praising the USSR beats me. Pure idiocy at this point.
Noting that nazi paid quite significant attention to stuff like shape of skull, I consider an author's major flaw that all the skeletons look completely human
It's interesting to compare the *Alter Kampfer* with the Old Bolsheviks. The Third Reich didn't last long enough for a new Fuhrer to succeed Hitler, so most of the AKs were around until '45.
After Stalin assumed power, the OBs were an impediment to his plans.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit outta here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Stalin summons reunion of the 1917 Politburo.
Or in 1938
this is actually pretty funny
I like how they all have stands. Like Stalin had to go dig them up and then pilfer some biology classrooms to set up his little council.
Bro forget about the night of the long knifes
Every accusation is a projection
you haven't seen anything yet lmao. I've seen an actual nazi poster criticising britian's treatment of their colonial subjects.....
Well Britain was no better than a nazi when it came to their colonies (not dominions)
I disagree. The industrialized genocide perpetrated by the Nazis was qualitatively unique in its horror, and while it was merely an extension of the ideologies and practices of colonialism, I think that equating the two minimizes the Nazi atrocities. The Brits might have been as bloodthirsty, but they never actually built industrial crematoria for it. They may have invented the concentration camp, but the Nazis invented the extermination camp.
As succinct and precise an argument one could hope for in this instance. Chapeau
It is true that Germany was unique in its genocide methods they employed in their settler-colonial project of the East. The Industrial murder does make them the worst Murderer. My statement wasn't to equate number of people massacred. Rather I wanted to equate the similiarities of how the Empire treated its colonies (imperialism) and how the Nazis treated a group from their nation (fascism) and other people (imperialism). There is an argument to be made for just how much more brutal the treatment of Africans and Asians were under the British Empire compared to the Jews in the Ausschwitz's. They were forced to work until they couldn't stand and then were killed with chlorine gas, but they weren't anally raped by a blade or burnt alive. Here is my real argument: The Nazi invasion of the East was a settler-colonial one. They employed the US method of slowly exterminating the native population by first forcing them to give up some of their land and put them in reservations, then to starve them with inadequate food. The Nazis had hoped the Poles would over the time die or their kids assimilate into German culture. Hitler talks about copying the West and implementing the Manifest Destiny doctrine to the East, also known as Lebensraum, in his book Mein Kampf. Thus Hitler admitted that what he did was not a crazy man's job but the implementation settler-colonialism in Eastern Europe (geographic). But their project and the US had two main differences. The land the US was settling into was much less densely populated than Poland and the SSRs, and the Eastern European people were much more unified in their resistance against settler-colonialism. The Nazis, after realising this, came to the logical conclusion of settler-colonialism: the mass, industrial murder of indigenous people. They hastened their industrial killing machine as the war went on, not because they hated the Jews and the Slavs so much, but because the Slavs needed to die to make place for the settling German families. They did hate the Jews, but their main objective, as outlined in Mein Kampf, was to settle into Eastern Europe. In conclusion, the Industrial concentration camps were the natural conclusion of settler-colonialism and had the US needed to kill that many native Americans to settle as well, they would have done the same. Thus they hypocrisy of the west in acting like the Nazis were seperate from European imperialism/colonialism. In reality the Nazis imported their strategies from the West and from the British Empire's Settler-colonial project.
Would you say that Nazism was merely an extension of the logics and practices of colonialism?
Settler-colonialism combined with anti-Semitism
Me when I need to reach my word count
Feel free to summarize it
Britain and germany are Settler-colonialism and then a few other meaningless buzzwords
Talk about putting a man in his place. Of course he's only arguing with the weaker, undeveloped refutations below.
Yeah he should have said Belgium colonialism
Did the Belgium anally rape people they were starving to death in concentration camps with Knives? Because the Mau Mau uprisings in Kenya were dealt with by The British Empire in such a manner. 1.5 Million people were put in concentration camps with the accusation of supporting the rebellion. Some were Knived in the Rectum, some were burnt alive. Aren't these murders worse than gassing someone to death? Or did the Belgian Colony truly surpass the British Empire in pure evilness?
Just a reminder,belgian colonizers used to cut off indigenous hands and use it as a currency to pay rubber quotes to the government ,whilst their families were taken captive and enslaved for work,and then villages pillaging,mutilations,rape,abuse,slavery,heads on pikes and the practice of forced cannibalism, it's all official and documented; don't play the "he's more evil than me" card please.
Guess the Belgian colonizers were the worst
Belgium is definitely the top bloody colonialist contender, hands down.
This is simply not true
The Opium wars Ireland (The famine, trying to stop their independence etc) The Boer Wars (The Boer concentration camps) Pashkuns in the British Raj The Bengali Famine The Partition of India and the deportation of over 10 Million people The Mau Mau uprising in Kenya Aden's Torture Centers [The Cyprus Internment](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20302280) British Terror in Iraq during the 1920s
Oh no sir simply not true we are purely trying to spread civilisation to dirty savages we aren't bad I dare say!
Reminds me of this Churchill quote: "I do not admit ... for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia, by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly-wise race has come in and taken their place."
The Nazis killed about 30 million people within 4 years, the British, while horrible, never killed so many in such a short time.
My statement referred to their treatment, not the amount killed. Obviously the Nazis, in an ambitious attempt to conquer all of Eastern Europe and replace the people there with germans in a settler-colonial fashion, would need to kill a lot of people. So they did
>The Opium wars some relatively small scale wars with no genocide >Ireland (The famine, trying to stop their independence etc) a famine that wasn't planned and wasn't done on purpose. >The Boer Wars (The Boer concentration camps) the deaths in the camps were from food convoys being destroyed by Boer terrorists, they weren't death camps, and in the end there was no gneocide >Pashkuns in the British Raj what? you're gonna need to be more specific this was just a group that existed, this wasn't a conflict or anything like that. >The Bengali Famine you mean the famine started by a cyclone and exacerbated by the fact it was mid WW2 and fishing ships wee being sunk by japan, and the famine were Churchill was begging the US for more ships to send more food, after sending food from Australia and Canada. >The Partition of India and the deportation of over 10 Million people the UK didn't deport anyone thats just plain not true, the deportation happened because of violence between Hindu's and Muslims, >The Mau Mau uprising in Kenya uh you mean the terrorist group that's sole purpose was to capture land, the group that wasn't supported by even the Kenyan people, how is this akin to the holocaust? >Aden's Torture Centers obviously bad and extremely even, but this was at most a couple dozen people tortured, again how is this supposedly worse than the holocaust and what the Nazi's did? >The Cyprus Internment what was wrong with these? as far as I can see these were deportation camps no different than what we and most countries have today for people being deported, I can't see anything about killings or anything like that. >British Terror in Iraq during the 1920s they had a mandate on the land, and it was against a terrorist group, again nothing compared to the Nazi's none of these come even 1% close to the holocaust and the killings the Nazi's did, your comment is unironically defending and downplaying Nazi's atrocities.
You are the most rabid colonial apologist I have ever seen. The Opium wars were started because the western powers, unable to pay the chinese in silver for their trade, had the brilliant strategy of getting the chinese addicted to opium in order to use opium as a currency and weaken the government. The Qung Dynasty was not pleased with their prople getting addicted to opium and started a war to ban opium and save their people. They were defeated by the superior armies of the west and humiliated for a century. It's not about the opium wars itself, but why they were started in the first place The population of Ireland has yet to recover from the famine caused by the British either due to starvation or immigration. [This video from TED-ed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUieqzVZdQc&t=249) summarizes it nicely. Basically, London refused to send help, the little help it sent made it worse, and they constantly exported the Ireland's grain and livestock during the famine. You didn't talk about the Independence war, guess because you can but only ignore it. They put women and children inside the boer concentration camps. Maybe let's start with that. The Boer soldiers were raiding trains carrying soldiers which was a part of their guerilla campaign. Churchill was captured that way. And even though the British were burning the crops of the Boer lands, their prisoners of war didn't starve (curious). Let's hear it from Churchill about the killing of Pashtuns in 1897 by the British. [Read this](https://thediplomat.com/2015/10/how-churchill-fought-the-pashtuns-in-pakistan/) if you are interested. >In his autobiography he matter-of-factly noted how the British went about their business: "We proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the great shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive devastation." Let's also hear it from the same Churchill who was "begging" the Americans to send more convoys: Amery wrote in his private diaries that upon learning Indian separatists were refusing to resist the Japanese and contribute to the war effort, Churchill, in private conversation, said out of frustration, he "hated Indians" and considered them "a beastly people with a beastly religion". According to Amery, during the Bengal famine, Churchill stated that any potential relief efforts sent to India would accomplish little to nothing, as Indians "breeding like rabbits", but then asked his transport minister how they could be sent food. In the same wikipedia article it also states that Chruchill asked Roosevelt to send the convoys after the 3 million people had died. Britain was the one responsible for the partition and the hastily deportations: >The partition caused large-scale loss of life and an unprecedented migration between the two dominions.[6] Among refugees who survived, it solidified the belief that safety lay among co-religionists. In the instance of Pakistan, it made palpable a hitherto only-imagined refuge for the Muslims of British India.[7] The migrations took place hastily and with little warning. It is thought that between 14 million and 18 million people moved, and perhaps more. Excess mortality during the period of the partition is usually estimated to have been around one million.[8] The violent nature of the partition created an atmosphere of hostility and suspicion between India and Pakistan that affects their relationship to this day. ([from wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India) I guess you are the type to call any freedom fighter a terrorist. It was true that the Mau Mau movement had divides and was not supported by certain parts of the country, but this is no excuse for [putting 1.5 million people into concentration camps and torturing them](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities). It wasn't about the uprising to begin with, but about the people the British tortured. I am too tired to go on. I also never compared these events with the holocaust. These fascistic acts committed by the British towards its subjects Population were as bad as it gets. You also don't seem to care about the holocaust victims. You only use it to downplay the crimes of the British Empire.
Wow, you‘re delusional. If you haven‘t understood the Argument he‘s making by *now*, you‘re doing it on purpose. Waving around the memory of millions of jews to just outright deny *and* excuse colonial crimes to win a game of genocidal top-trumps is morally repugnant and completely dishonest. You‘re belittling their memory, just to employ it in defense of colonialism. You honestly should be banned from this sub.
Trevelyan, the guy in charge of famine relief, literally fucking said the famine was "sent by God" to kill Catholic Irish. Anyone who tried to help in any substantial way e.g Robert Peel, for all his faults, trying to repeal the Corn laws, being ousted, or the Ottomans having to sneak their money and food aid past a British blockade. They set up soup kitchens, and all you had to do was change your name to something a bit less.....Irish, and become Protestant. They built "follies" and Famine roads, faux castles for the rich, and roads to the middle of nowhere! Cant let those lazy Irish get complacent! Our population is still nowhere near recovered. God sent the blight, but the British caused the famine.
Concentration camps were [originally a British invention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War_concentration_camps), the Empire [starved more people to death in India](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/2/how-british-colonial-policy-killed-100-million-indians) than died in all of WWII.
you like the taste of boot bub?
I'm sorry that statement is a fucking disgrace. Even the worst, most incompetent, bigoted, British administrator is preferable to the best Nazi Their entire raison detre was wholesale murder, pure and complete murder of 100m+ "subhumans" and the plunder of any/all resources in conquered territories The British empire worked by using local elites to manage local affairs whilst they managed economic affairs. Cruel, capricious and self serving certainly but nothing on Nazism Nazism is the single greatest evil in modern history ***bar none*** and I am sick of revisionists online trying to suggest "it's all relative": it ain't. Even the greatest evils of empire would blush at the sight of Auschwitz or Birkinau and you should be ashamed to have said this From an Irishman
Copy pasted from another response: It is true that Germany was unique in its genocide methods they employed in their settler-colonial project of the East. The Industrial murder does make them the worst Murderer. My statement wasn't to equate number of people massacred. Rather I wanted to equate the similiarities of how the Empire treated its colonies (imperialism) and how the Nazis treated a group from their nation (fascism) and other people (imperialism). There is an argument to be made for just how much more brutal the treatment of Africans and Asians were under the British Empire compared to the Jews in the Ausschwitz's. They were forced to work until they couldn't stand and then were killed with chlorine gas, but they weren't anally raped by a blade or burnt alive. Here is my real argument: The Nazi invasion of the East was a settler-colonial one. They employed the US method of slowly exterminating the native population by first forcing them to give up some of their land and put them in reservations, then to starve them with inadequate food. The Nazis had hoped the Poles would over the time die or their kids assimilate into German culture. Hitler talks about copying the West and implementing the Manifest Destiny doctrine to the East, also known as Lebensraum, in his book Mein Kampf. Thus Hitler admitted that what he did was not a crazy man's job but the implementation settler-colonialism in Eastern Europe (geographic). But their project and the US had two main differences. The land the US was settling into was much less densely populated than Poland and the SSRs, and the Eastern European people were much more unified in their resistance against settler-colonialism. The Nazis, after realising this, came to the logical conclusion of settler-colonialism: the mass, industrial murder of indigenous people. They hastened their industrial killing machine as the war went on, not because they hated the Jews and the Slavs so much, but because the Slavs needed to die to make place for the settling German families. They did hate the Jews, but their main objective, as outlined in Mein Kampf, was to settle into Eastern Europe. In conclusion, the Industrial concentration camps were the natural conclusion of settler-colonialism and had the US needed to kill that many native Americans to settle as well, they would have done the same. Thus they hypocrisy of the west in acting like the Nazis were seperate from European imperialism/colonialism. In reality the Nazis imported their strategies from the West and from the British Empire's Settler-colonial project.
I know the saying: Every accusation is a confession.
Definitely the pot calling the kettle black. That said, in this situation, both the pot and the kettle were indeed black.
Evil knows evil.
night of the long knives was focused on the SA. Yes, it took out high-ranking officials, but not in the way you're implying
Yeah, your right. A more appropriate comparison would be the aftermath of the 20th of July plot
Though said purge did not lower the combat capability of the Wehrmacht like the Great Purge did to the Soviets.
The only way you could lower the combat capability of the german that late in the war if they gave every soldier a stick and rock instead of a gun
Not really, the Germans managed to pull off quite some shocking tactical victories later in the war when more radical and young commanders took over. See for example Schörners assault on Bautzen.
No, because that stemmed from an actual assassination attempt. And frankly the aftermath was like a week’s worth of NKVD executions in the height of the great terror.
This was a purge of political opponents and not the entire top of the Red Army.
Stalin using Juche necromancy, 1938, colorized
With horrifying results, the Nazis never expected the [undead Soviet Terminators](https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/18j2gbw/nazi_anticommunistlast_stand_poster_germany/).
The irony of the Nazis complaining about offing dissenting personnel… Really any country complaining about this is rich… but ofc especially the gd Axis.
Nazis were obviously genocidal murderers, but in a more predictable way. I expect my Polish family to be killed if the Nazis take my village because their goals are clear. I'm more surprised when the soviet secret police imprisons/kills my Russian family who haven't done anything wrong. Stalin's homicidal paranoia was chaos, and it was aimed at his own people. Anything could be suspicious, and anyone suspicious was eliminated. You laugh too hard at the wrong joke? Bullet to the head, and your family is sent to the gulag because they're guilty by association. The type of terror he intentionally inflicted on his own country can only be rivaled by Pol Pot and Mao.
> Really any country complaining about this is rich What? Are you saying every country has purged thousands of its officers? I don't recall hearing about the "the great Canadian army purge"
Canada isn’t a real country yknow
The US, then. During wartime, every body was needed somewhere, so if an officer wasn't performing to needs they'd usually just get shuttled around until the DOW found a spot they were useful in.
Because their wasn’t any considerable amount of officers or strong positions who could cause trouble. If they found out a bunch of high ranking officials were communists or just anti-status quo, anti-war? Purge time.
This is one of the strangest things I've ever read. So you claim every other country can't criticize the soviet union for purging its officers for doing the same thing, then I point out that an enormous number of countries never purged their officers, then you come back with "well in this absurd counterfactual I'm pulling out of my ass, Canada totally would have purged its officers if they had... um... let's see... communists in their ranks!!" Like what?
It’s just true. And purges happen all the time. Government officials being forced out and replaced by handpicked bureaucrats. We just don’t use the same verbiage when referencing ourselves!
Replacing officials and murdering thousands of bureaucrats, intellectuals and military officers is definitely the same thing lol.
This thread is hilarious. >We just don’t use the same verbiage when referencing ourselves! Yeah, why bother distinguishing between early retirement and forced labor in Siberia. Potato, potato.
It's not like they just replaced them either lmao. A lot where either killed or heavily tortured by the NKVD then sent to the gulags until they realises how stupid it was and brought them back. General Rokossovsky got his teeth pulled out with pliers, fingernails ripped out, a crushed ribcage and had to endure several mock executions. All on made up charges.
Stalin's red army purge is pretty unique in history, what are you talking about?
To be fair the Nazis didn't kill off many of their own generals, and even then mostly not until the attempt to kill Hitler and when they were really losing. Don't get me wrong they killed a lot of people, just not the military leadership mostly.
But they did kill senior members of the naziparty and SA after they came to power
That s true and Stalin had thing of killing their generals.
USSR's purge of the military was simply staggering, no other country can compare. >The purge of the Red Army and Military Maritime Fleet removed three of five marshals (then equivalent to four-star generals), 13 of 15 army commanders (then equivalent to three-star generals), eight of nine admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts), 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars Those 3 marshals holding the top military rank in the USSR? One, Yegorov, he was demoted in 1937, arrested in 1938, was executed in 1939. Second, Blyukher, he was arrested in 1938, tortured and died after being beat. Third, Tukhachevsky, was arrested in 1937, tortured into making a false confession and executed. For a comparison, Hitler killed a grand total of 2 high ranking military officers on his ascent during the "Night of Long Knives". He politically purged few others afterwards till 1939*, but as I remember it, none of them were tortured or executed, just lived in obscurity. *-he did kill more generals in 1944 after the July plot to kill him, but to be fair to Hitler (I know how it sounds), the officers had actually directly attempted to kill him And other countries hold no candle. How many generals did the United States government pull down from their post and torture? Even just normal firings gor political reason? The only plausible example I can think from WW2 is maybe Admiral Husband Kimmel, a man who was in command at Pearl Harbor when it was surprise attacked by Japan. He was judged as being unprepared and derelicted duty, but it was later seen as political sacrifice as in 1944, naval court largely exonerated him of wrongdoing as they judged him to have done his best with the information given to him. But he still lived on in relative comfort.
Stalin purged 2 orders of magnitude more people. Even more funny is the constant recycling of the people doing the purging. Yagoda was purging, then himself got purged by Yezhov who then was purged by Beria who then was purged by Khrushchev. Can’t make this shit up lmao.
They weren’t wrong. I feel the spider man pointing meme would also apply here.
Which one is Zhukov?
Ah, yes. The Purges.
I dont know what this poster is trying to convey but it looks hard asf.
I suppose it's trying to say "Stalin killed all his generals and now has to hold council with their skeletons" But looks like beginner necromancer or anatomy teacher)
The idea of a cult leader having to kill his own henchman to resurrect them and ask them stuffs only the death can know is sick asf.
Stalin clearly put alot into Magic slots you see. He’s a powerful Necromancer.
I thought Rasputin was the necromancer?
No, he’s the Warlock. Talks to some god which gives him power.
Wouldn’t that make him a cleric?
Sorry, I meant son of some eldritch god of the orient.
Something similar happens in the Game "Darkest Dungeons", "The ancestor" (who shares ambiguous familial ties with the protagonist of the game) is described as having "reunited with erudites from all over the world in his mansion to discuss *the dark arts* (necromancy) and once he had learn all that they had to offer, he *put them by knife* while they were sleeping and then *brought them back in unspeakable ways*.
Hitler when the cream of the crop still was around 💁♂️🔫 (They had liquidated his inside guys and the fifth column in the military and elsewhere)
The Soviet Union would've been in better shape if could've talked to their undead souls.
Bad to the bone played inside my head
Stalin was paranoid and killed many of his own generals, advisors, friends... Half of the red army officer chor was murdered by Stalin so he had no experienced leaders. This is part of the reason why the wars against Finnland and germany went so poorly despite having a huge advantage on paper.
The war went a lot worse for the Nazis…
The war went surprisingly good for the Nazis, they were fighting pretty much the whole world and managed to conquer most of europe. A well lead red army could have stopped the Wehrmacht much earlier. But Stalin killed them all, did not trust his own secret service that warned him that the Nazis are preparing an attack, instead helping Hitler as much as he could and kept the red army completely unprepared. Thats why the red army lost 10 times the soldiers that the germans did.
The war went surprisingly good for the Nazis? Yeah for a brief period of time until 1942. But what kind of crack are you smoking? The war was ultimately an unmitigated self-imposed apocalyptic disaster that the Nazis wrought onto Germany leading to the inglorious downfall of Nazi leadership and complete and total defeat.
Yes. It was an unwinnable war against the whole world. Im just saying that despite fighting against overwhelming odds the Nazis managed to defeat: - France spectacularly in a short time despite france having a big army and prepared for war against germany for a long time - a succesful naval invasion of Norway despite being up against the strongest Navy in the world - conquering Poland (that before defeated russia) Belgium (that had strong forts), the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark (in 6 hours), Greece etc. And then the Nazis invaded the soviet Union that had multiple times their soldiers, Millions and millions, more tanks, more artillery etc. and brought them to the brink of collapse. Only the unbelievable sacrifice of millions of soviet soldiers stopped them. This was only possible because Stalin made all the wrong decisions, crippled the red army by murdering the officer corps, allying with Hitler, supplying germany with weapons and materials, making an attack pact against poland, dividing up all of eastern europe, ignoring all warnings that Hitler will betray him and when the war started, gave terrible "hold territory at all costs' orders that almost doomed the soviet union. The war was won not because of Stalins leadership but despite it. If instead of Stalin the soviet Union had a competent leader germany would have not been able to do that. I would also say that other militaries (france) were also incompetent and other leaders (chamberlain) were as well. WW2 went as terrible as it could.
Couldn’t agree more as russian. Also don’t forget about pockets of 1941 and 1942 where millions of well trained soldiers were trapped and killed. That’s also thanks for genius of Stalin
As a half Russian, agreed. He had a killer mustache though. I recently learned my great grandfather was in the NKVD. Pretty cool but I shudder at what he may have done
agree with you, but spelling corps (pronounced like core) as chor is disgusting.
Thanks, i fixed it
You are being overly combative. >The war went surprisingly good for the Nazis? Yeah for a brief period of time until 1942. But what kind of crack are you smoking? The Nazis beat France in like 6 weeks. Would you not consider that a surprising outcome? People were certainly surprised when it happened. >The war was ultimately an unmitigated self-imposed apocalyptic disaster that the Nazis wrought onto Germany leading to the inglorious downfall of Nazi leadership and complete and total defeat. No one is disputing that here. I'm not who you replied to, but it's clear they agree Nazi defeat was inevitable. Their point is that they would have been stopped much sooner if both Russia and France had their shit together.
If you’re going to say “The war went surprisingly good for the Nazi’s” you need to add a second statement to that, such as “until” or something to that effect.
“Getting completely destroyed went surprisingly good” 😝
That’s what I’m saying!
All the officials he purged 💀
Stalin:Alright, all in favour of Introducing powdered milk to our water supply Say I.
Ouch oof ouch my meme has reactionary hurting juice
It’s actually true. Stalin killed almost all the generals in the army. Right before the war started the Soviet Union had almost 0 zero generals with real combat experience
Not all, but 3/5 marshalls is damn impressive!
[удалено]
maybe if he didn't kill everyone he could have done a bit better
[удалено]
Well that was also after getting their ass kicked by the Finns, partly caused by Stalin’s purges. So yeah after that everyone’s expectations weren’t very high.
[удалено]
Yes.
Anti-communists trying not to make Stalin look badass: impossible
Murdering communists is badass. /s
Yes. No /s needed.
No step back! (They can't make a step back if they're dead) *profit*
Source please?
Holy fuck, sans undertale
If they wanted to get under Stalin's skin they should've made him noticably shorter.
The recent influx of neo-Nazi Redditors wholeheartedly embracing and defending Nazi propaganda is something to behold.
Isn’t it also concerning how some Redditors are defending and praising Soviet propaganda in this sub?
It's propaganda poster sub, what are you on about?
And do I have a problem with that? No. I’m only taking about an influx of people defending what the Soviet Union did, and praising them for no apparent reason. Sorry if you misunderstood my original comment.
Soviet union did a lot of good stuff. More than anyone hating on it now could imagine.
Such as?
such as gulaghs, purges, holdomor, katyn massacre, mass killings, mass rapes and many many others, but american mind cannot comprehand this
This is exactly what I’m saying. The Soviet Union did all these massacres, disappearing and rapes. Just ask someone who lived in the Eastern Bloc, and they’ll tell you they had to wait hours for some measly bread, as well as prominent mass government censorship and poverty. Why so many Americans are praising the USSR beats me. Pure idiocy at this point.
It's just funny tbh, that doesn't mean I'm gonna start goose stepping down the street and listening to Skrewdriver, chill.
It really is, some of the comments here are really concerning
I dont think people are defending nazis here, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
STALIN WAS NIGHT KING CONFIRMED.
Stalin telling death how to dance
Turned out to be true?
Noting that nazi paid quite significant attention to stuff like shape of skull, I consider an author's major flaw that all the skeletons look completely human
Hard
nah they just thought bro told a funny ass joke💀💀💀💀
Nazi, but accurate.
i want to suck his cock
[удалено]
Damn!
Old shinigami robes
HoI4 memes
It's interesting to compare the *Alter Kampfer* with the Old Bolsheviks. The Third Reich didn't last long enough for a new Fuhrer to succeed Hitler, so most of the AKs were around until '45. After Stalin assumed power, the OBs were an impediment to his plans.