Still terrifying. LGBT folks like myself, Romani people, and more were also in those gas chambers.
Edit: lol, downvotes. Yeah, anti-LGBT sentiment is still popular on the right, in Russia the US, and all points between. Huzzah, the gas chambers!
You didn't come across as getting the point of what I was saying – my point was "if in your own mind, your fundamental definition of group X is that they are anti-Y, people who are (openly and proudly) X and Y simultaneously doesn't make any sense, and when faced with a situation which makes zero sense given pre-existing assumptions, many people will react by just ignoring it". My example of "neo-Nazis who are openly and proudly Jewish" was just an illustrative example; "neo-Nazis who are openly and proudly LGBT" or "neo-Nazis who are openly and proudly Romani" or even "neo-Nazis who are openly and proudly LGBT Romani", are examples of it too.
Your comment also comes across as a generic tangent which isn't trying to add anything original or insightful to the discussion, just repeating facts most people here already know. Yes, we all know the Nazis committed crimes against many different groups – you didn't mention the disabled, the mentally ill, Poles, Serbs (murdered by the Nazis' Ustashe allies in Croatia), Black people, Jehovah's Witnesses, Freemasons, the Czechs of Lidice, among others – but is simply pointing that out adding anything useful to the conversation? We don't need to list every single victim of Nazi crimes every time they become the topic of conversation, and "you forgot about X, they were victims too" is rarely a valuable contribution.
Finally, reaching for "anti-LGBT sentiment" as an explanation for the downvotes, rather than considering other possible explanations – like your apparent failure to get the point, or contributing a generic tangent – isn't helping you either.
In Canada there is a monument to a Nazi SS division [1], because it was made up of Ukrainian volunteers fighting the Soviets, post-Holodomor that was seen as the lesser of two evils.
So with that small bit of trivia in mind, your explanation really does make sense and I'm surprised I haven't seen it put or thought of it that way. I reckon that context is probably also relevant to the "nazi-ism" of Ukrainian paramilitary (and now formal military) units like Azov Brigade? (although being close to totally ignorant on the subject, for all I know said groups are equally antisemitic).
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorials_in_Canada_to_Nazis...
Whether we are talking about Ukrainian nationalists, or Croatian nationalists, or Finns, or whoever else – if the Nazis are the only people willing to be your allies, what do you do?
And in India: Subhas Chandra Bose, one of the leaders of the Indian independence movement, chose to ally himself with Hitler and Imperial Japan. Many Indians today still view him as a hero, and do not think his willingness to fight with the Axis condemns him. At the controversial Yasukuni Shrine in Japan, where Japan's war criminals are deified, there is a statute honouring the Indian judge Radhabinod Pal, who was the only judge at the Tokyo War Crimes Trial to acquit all the defendants. Through the memories of Bose and Pal, the governments of India and Japan have found something to bond over–their shared sympathy for the losing side in the Second World War.
Hmm, I wonder why. Maybe because of this [0]:
"An UVO brochure from 1929 stated: "Terror will be not only a means of self-defense, but also a form of agitation, which will affect friend and foe alike, regardless of whether they desire it or not."
The UVO organized a number of assassination attempts on some of the most renowned Polish and Ukrainian politicians, some of which were successful."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Military_Organizatio...
That's not the only thing they were doing. [0]
"like Azov Brigade"
I'd recommend a book by a Canadian journalist collaborating with Bellingcat on the subject of Azov and other Ukrainian nationalists. [1]
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Divisi...
[1] http://cup.columbia.edu/book/from-the-fires-of-war/978383821...
Of course, the optics of being seen as a Nazi are very bad, so even Nazis are constantly pointing fingers and saying "no, THAT person is the true Nazi." But the facts aren't on their side, so we have no obligation to humor them when they say absurd things like "Zelenskyy is the true Nazi", when the man, aside from being Jewish, also isn't espousing Nazi ideology.
> “Wagner” is literally a Nazi dog whistle. Wagner group are not just small-n “nazis”
and
> Or at least some of them are.
This isn't the type of substantive comment that HN is looking for. It definitely leans towards "flamebait" while lacking substance that the rest of us can work with or learn from. I don't even necessarily disagree with you, but I would argue that this comment doesn't add anything helpful to this discussion.
It’s like calling the group “88 Division”. Sure, not all of the grunts working for them are dyed-in-the-wool Nazis, but the leadership sure are.
Wagner was never a Nazi – he died six years before Hitler was born. Wagner isn't my thing, but not all fans of his music (even today) are Nazis. Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, was a big Wagner fan–of course, he knew Wagner was a rabid antisemite, but he managed to look past that and appreciate his music in spite of his antisemitism. In 2001, the Israeli conductor Mendi Rodan–a Holocaust survivor–conducted the first public performance of one of Wagner's works in Israel since before the Second World War. If a Holocaust survivor can separate the artistic value of Wagner's music from Wagner's Jew-hatred, can others?
I wouldn't recommend naming something after him–especially in contemporary English-speaking culture which is very focused on the historical associations of names–although it is easy to forget how specific that (relatively recent development) is to a particular cultural sphere, something alien to much of the globe–but I wouldn't assume someone who did so was necessarily motivated by any sympathy for Nazism or antisemitism, especially someone coming from a culture which lacks that focus.
Actually, here's an open source project named Wagner, and obviously in reference to the composer – https://github.com/spite/Wagner – maybe an unfortunate choice of name, but I see no reason to accuse the author of sympathy for Nazism or antisemitism
> It’s like calling the group “88 Division”. Sure, not all of the grunts working for them are dyed-in-the-wool Nazis, but the leadership sure are.
"88" can mean a lot of different things. To Australians of a certain age, it may make them think of Australia's bicentenary celebrations in 1988. Some in the UK may remember "Charter 88", a left-of-centre constitutional reform pressure group founded in that year. In Chinese culture, 88 means good luck–and as someone who lives in a country with a significant Chinese minority, I've seen it used in that sense a lot over the years. I have no idea what (if anything) "88" means in Russia, but I wouldn't assume a hypothetical Russian group with "88" in its name necessarily had anything to do with Nazism. "88" as a neo-Nazi code is part of American culture, in other cultures 88 means completely different things, or nothing at all. Even in US culture, it has meanings unrelated to Nazism (amateur radio, NASCAR)
I'm no fan of Wagner PMC – they are brutes guilty of war crimes – but why bother with this worthless "dog whistle" criticism of them when there are lots of real atrocities we can condemn them for?
Who are you talking about here? Yevgeny Prigozhin? Dmitry Utkin?
And what is the evidence either of them is a "nazi sympathizer"?
As I said, I'm no fan of either man – I expect the day will come when the ICC indicts both of them for war crimes – but I don't see the point of labelling them as "nazis" on the basis of flimsy evidence. The case that they are war criminals is much stronger than the case that they are Nazis – and surely being a war criminal is a lot worse than being a Nazi (not all of whom were guilty of war crimes/crimes against humanity/genocide–Franz von Papen joined the Nazi Party and served Nazi Germany as its ambassador–first to Austria and then to Turkey–but the Nuremberg Trial acquitted him of all charges)
The site guidelines [0] explicitly say "Assume good faith". So this comment of yours does not appear to be in compliance with them.
Those people behind this are nazis with nazis tatoos, a name and a logo inspired by nazis, are doing nazi-like actions and support nazi racial ideologies.
No amount of bikeshedding, moving goalposts and reasoning fallacies won't change the facts about this nazi group.
Also, you accuse me of violating the guidelines, but your allegation never cites their text; whereas, in accusing me of "bad faith" you are violating an explicit statement in them ("Assume good faith")
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
I'm not accusing of bad faith, I'm witnessing bad faith, bikeshedding and multiple sophisms trying to deny what this group is.
And it's not only on HN, this behavior doesn't really lead to productive discussion anywhere either.
Not that I care much, I'm not going to convince people going as far as denying neo-nazi groups, I'm just passing by and pointing the large argumentation issues made while doing said process.
You can have a good day.
This comment is yet another example of how you are not arguing in good faith.
You're somehow trying to misrepresent the problem of your insistence in downplaying and even denying evidence of Wagner's neonazi and white supremacists ties as just people disagreeing, and then passing yourself as a victim for being attacked for not agreeing with something. This is a gross misrepresentation of the whole discussion.
You're referring to a guy covered in Nazi tattoos who created an organization reflecting Nazi ideology and with known tie with white supremacists and neonazi ideologies as having no objective ties to Nazi ideologies. While you deny that, you're desperately trying to pass off any remark refuting your baseless claim as being attacks o difference of opinions, when actually you're irrationally denying evidence and insisting on pushing a blatantly false idea.
You don't seem to be arguing in good faith, and it looks you're trying to manipulate and distort things to whitewash neonazi organizations under the excuse of relativizing evidence, shift burdens of proof, and manipulating objectivisim bars to still claim a fact is not verified in spite of all the evidence and thus it should be treated as false. This is not good faith, and screams as neonazi apologism.
If you go back and read what I said, I said:
> what is the evidence either of them is a "nazi sympathizer"?
That's not denying anything. That's simply asking what the evidence is.
When asking what the evidence for an assertion is gets the response:
> This is not good faith, and screams as neonazi apologism.
I don't think we are engaging in rational discussion any more. Continued engagement is pointless.
No, you're not. Evidence was already presented, time and again. You chose to ignore it, time and again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
https://www.seekfind.net/Logical_Fallacy_of_Argument_by_Dema...
The jig is up. Stop it. You could be faced with a signed confession with someone asserting they are a neonazi white supremacist, and you'd still try to reject it with some lame excuse like "oh they might just be joking", and proceed as you've been proceeding and insist in more evidence.
That's simply false. There absolutely is such a thing as neo-Nazis: people like George Lincoln Rockwell, Matthias Koehl and Rocky Suhayda (leaders of the "American Nazi Party" and its splinter groups), William John Beattie (founder of the "Canadian Nazi Party"), Colin Jordan (leader of the "World Union of National Socialists" and founder of the "National Socialist Movement in the United Kingdom"). David Myatt, the founder of the O9A Satanist group, used to publicly identify as a Nazi–and although he has since insisted that he has renounced Nazism, I'm sceptical that his renunciation is genuine. I could go on, there's many more names I could add to that list.
If someone says "I'm a Nazi", I'm going to take their word for it. All the people I just mentioned openly said that (or words to that effect), so I am going to take their word for it.
Prigozhin and Utkin are both horrible human beings, and very likely guilty of war crimes–but I'm not aware either of them has ever said "I'm a Nazi". Stuff like tattoos are weak evidence because symbols can mean different things to different people, and you can only guess at what it actually means to that person–that's especially the case when dealing with a different country with a very different culture. Whereas, "I'm a Nazi" is evidence that is very hard to dispute.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
>Just asking questions
>Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.
>The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers), and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).
>Strategy
>The purpose of this argument method is to influence spectators' views by asking leading questions, regardless of the answers given. The term is derived from the questioner's frequent claim that they are "just asking questions," albeit in a manner much the same as political push polls. Additionally, this tactic is a way for a crank to escape the burden of proof behind extraordinary claims.[1]
>In some cases, it also helps hide the nebulousness or absurdity of the questioner's own views. For example, a 9/11 truther may ask questions about perceived irregularities in the collapse, Larry Silverstein saying "pull it," and the plane that hit the Pentagon. If turned back around on the truther, the implication is that they think that the plot involved numerous bizarre complications (rigging three buildings with explosives, making an on-the-spot decision to instruct the FDNY to detonate one of them, replacing a plane with a missile and later littering the Pentagon with plane wreckage). In avoiding proposing their own hypothesis, the questioner can come across as smoothly winning a debate, since the other person is unable to answer a "just being asked" question. In fact, it can be very useful to "just ask questions" of woos, inasmuch as getting woos to put a hypothesis forward (or even just admitting to believing something crazy) can be a worthy accomplishment.
>The questioner may claim they are playing devil's advocate. This is frequently to advance an odious position with no shortage of existing advocates.
>A dead give-away is when the person using this technique ignores the answers given, and just continues to ask the same questions.
If someone else is wrong or you feel they are, the good options include (1) post correct information substantively, so the rest of us can learn (this is very different from calling names and attacking personally, as you and others did in this thread); (2) downvote and/or (if the comment breaks the site guidelines) flag the post; (3) chalk it up to the internet being wrong and simply move on.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
I felt like using sophisms to defend neo-nazis wasn't in the spirit of HN, I come here for the intellectual curiosity and productive messages.
I know that with a topic this provocative it's difficult to read other people correctly, but the site guidelines provide explicit guidance about that too:
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
The American Jewish Committee has a lengthy article on Wagner's white supremacists and neo-Nazi ties.
https://www.ajc.org/news/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-wag...
The only thing that is flimsy is your willingness to accept evidence. I have serious doubts about your good faith by the way you're looking at a guy covered in Nazi tattoos and still insist in pretending those have no relationship with neonazi ideologies.
Also, "88 = Heil Hitler" doesn't make a lot of sense in Russian, since H is not the 8th letter of the Russian alphabet (it is Ж, normally transliterated as zh), and "Heil Hitler" in Russian is хайль гитлер – х is the 20th letter of the Russian alphabet not the 8th.
14/88 doesn't make a lot of sense in Russian, doesn't stop it from being plastered all over the place by different militias (Including, but not limited to, Wagner).
This level of kindergarten logic from a grown ass men never cease to amaze me.
>> In March 2015, Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov announced that the Azov Regiment would be among the first units to be trained by United States Army troops in the Operation Fearless Guardian training mission.[282][283] US training however was withdrawn on 12 June 2015, as the US House of Representatives passed an amendment blocking any aid (including arms and training) to the regiment due to its neo-Nazi background.[284][285] *However, the amendment was later removed in November 2015,[284]*
I remember reading somewhere, that "Nazism" means something rather different in Russian culture than in Western culture. In the West, you say "Nazi" and the first thing most people think of is the Nazi mass murder of Jews, the Holocaust–that's what the school curriculum focuses on. But in Russia, you say "Nazi" and the first thing most people think of is the Nazi mass murder of Russians–that's what the Russian school curriculum focuses on. In the West, "Nazi=homicidal anti-semitism"; in Russia, "Nazi=homicidal Russophobia".
But, given that, what sense do they make of a group of Russian "Nazis" who support the Kremlin and fight its wars? It is a bit like if you met a group of neo-Nazis, and discovered they were all openly and proudly Jewish. If something doesn't make sense, people often just choose to pay no attention to it.
Similarly, the Russian accusations that Ukraine is a "neo-Nazi regime" seem ludicrous to Western ears – "Zelenskyy is of Jewish descent, his great grandparents died in the Holocaust, how can he be a Nazi?" But to most Russians, for whom the primary meaning of "Nazi" is not "antisemite" but "Russophobe", the idea that "Ukrainian nationalism=Nazism" makes more sense, and Zelenskyy's Jewishness appears irrelevant.