Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Simple answer: Nazis are anti-semitic, racist, homophobic, supernationalistic (in a BAD way), murderous, hypocrytical (as many, many Nazis were found to be gay) dumb fucks. And that's all there is.

---

At 12/27/05 09:33 AM, Jinzoa wrote: my god that guy was a complete idiot, Naziism is stupid due to many reasons.

2.started war with neighbouring countries for no sane reason.

Labenstroun. Seems a pretty reasonable reason to me. Just as reasonable as invading Iraq for oil.

3.need i mention their arrogance due to their racism,homophobia and any other things.

Because they are arrogent, they are stupid? That does not follow.

4.they are pig headed believing their"Race is better"

So what? British and American people were told they were 'better than the Hun' during the war. Even now, I believe the Americans and British consider themselves superior to the Middle Eastern countries, for no real reason.

6.they killed people in wars they started for no sane reason.

Technically the Allies declared war on them. Looking at Hitler's actions:
Austria: No deaths
Rhineland: No deaths
Sudentenland: Few deaths
Poland: Few deaths
WWII: Many deaths.

And how would you define 'no sane reason'?

---

At 12/27/05 11:30 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 12/27/05 09:33 AM, Jinzoa wrote: my god that guy was a complete idiot, Naziism is stupid due to many reasons.

2.started war with neighbouring countries for no sane reason.

Labenstroun. Seems a pretty reasonable reason to me. Just as reasonable as invading Iraq for oil.

3.need i mention their arrogance due to their racism,homophobia and any other things.

Because they are arrogent, they are stupid? That does not follow.

4.they are pig headed believing their"Race is better"

So what? British and American people were told they were 'better than the Hun' during the war. Even now, I believe the Americans and British consider themselves superior to the Middle Eastern countries, for no real reason.

6.they killed people in wars they started for no sane reason.

Technically the Allies declared war on them. Looking at Hitler's actions:
Austria: No deaths
Rhineland: No deaths
Sudentenland: Few deaths
Poland: Few deaths
WWII: Many deaths.

And how would you define 'no sane reason'?

No sane reason as in they wanted land and power and were friggin' anti-semites, homophobes and racists, I'm guessing.

Austria was willing. Rhineland was essentially willing. Sudentenland was pretty much willing. Poland couldn't do shit (they attacked tanks with guys on horses...), WWII resulted in millions upon millions of deaths. The Nazis started it by attacking other sovereign nations-namely Poland.

---

At 12/27/05 11:39 AM, mackid wrote:
No sane reason as in they wanted land and power

Wouldn't you say it was quite an achievement though, rearming Germany and invading all those countries? The Nazis must have been good for most Germany up to the point where WWII started, you must agree

and were friggin' anti-semites, homophobes and racists, I'm guessing.

Irrelevant

---

At 12/27/05 11:30 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 12/27/05 09:33 AM, Jinzoa wrote: my god that guy was a complete idiot, Naziism is stupid due to many reasons.

2.started war with neighbouring countries for no sane reason.

Labenstroun. Seems a pretty reasonable reason to me. Just as reasonable as invading Iraq for oil.

yeah we invaded iraq for oil thats it the reason of all.......or was it that since the war cost America over 200billion dollars it was for oil when then most americans who supported the war at the time were dipshits as it would have been way cheaper to buy it.......im also sure rising gas prices show the oil we have taken is definatley for the rasing of gas prices.

3.need i mention their arrogance due to their racism,homophobia and any other things.

Because they are arrogent, they are stupid? That does not follow.

they are stupid for being that way, any racist, homophobic and close minded person to other religions are stupid.

4.they are pig headed believing their"Race is better"

So what? British and American people were told they were 'better than the Hun' during the war. Even now, I believe the Americans and British consider themselves superior to the Middle Eastern countries, for no real reason.

so do the middle eastern countries accept we did not go to war to wipe out inferiour races either.

6.they killed people in wars they started for no sane reason.

Technically the Allies declared war on them. Looking at Hitler's actions:
Austria: No deaths
Rhineland: No deaths
Sudentenland: Few deaths
Poland: Few deaths
WWII: Many deaths.

And how would you define 'no sane reason'?

On August 23, 1939, just before the war broke out, the USSR and Germany signed the non-aggression Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which, among other things, divided Eastern Europe into regions of influence. But Germany violated the pact when it invaded the USSR in 1941. Similarly, the US had the (much older) unilateral Monroe Doctrine, which stated that Europe should not interfere in the Americas and in turn the U.S. would not interfere in European affairs (including wars). But the U.S. entered the war after first Japan and then Germany declared war on it and launched direct attacks on its navy, shipping and other interests.

Germany broke the treaty forcing the unitation of the allies so they caused it by trying to invade the ussr

---

At 12/27/05 11:42 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 12/27/05 11:39 AM, mackid wrote:
No sane reason as in they wanted land and power

Wouldn't you say it was quite an achievement though, rearming Germany and invading all those countries? The Nazis must have been good for most Germany up to the point where WWII started, you must agree

and were friggin' anti-semites, homophobes and racists, I'm guessing.

Irrelevant

incredible achievement, no. Not at all, actually. They took advantage of a poor economic situation brought on by global economic depression and bypassed the Versailles treaty, which, we must note, was toothless-it had no methods of enforcing the provisions of preventing Germany from re-arming.

---

At 12/27/05 12:40 AM, Captn_Obvious wrote: A nazi (short for; nationalist socialist) is, in itself, a contradiction, due to hitlers explusion of communism as soon as he got to power. Naziism is defined as the belief in an aryan race, so yes, it is racist, to the most extreme degree. And finally, aimless 13 year olds and the like are most prone to believing in naziism because of their lack of taught morality. That is why they're telling you those things. Naziism is not a good thing to get into, not only because of the inherent evil imbued to it by the third reich, but also the embarrassment you'll feel in a few years when you look back at what you did.

[Anyone who relies on Wikipedia for information about National Socialism (or anything else for that matter) is going to be incredibly ignorant for all things relating to the subject matter.

Wikipedia is a garbage resource; I wouldn't rely on pileofshitopedia for anything and neither would any intelligent person or respectable academic institution.]

Encouraging signs from the Wikipedia project, where co-founder and überpedian Jimmy Wales has acknowledged there are real quality problems with the online work.

"This is garbage, an incoherent hodge-podge of dubious factoids that adds up to something far less than the sum of its parts," he wrote.

http://www.theregist..dia_quality_problem/

NEW YORK, New York (Reuters) -- Entries from Wikipedia, the popular free online encyclopedia written and edited by Internet users, may soon be available in print for readers in the developing world, founder Jimmy Wales said on Monday.

http://www.cnn.com/2..edia.reut/index.html

This is a highly personal story about Internet character assassination. It could be your story.

I have no idea whose sick mind conceived the false, malicious "biography" that appeared under my name for 132 days on Wikipedia, the popular, online, free encyclopedia whose authors are unknown and virtually untraceable.

http://www.usatoday...-11-29-wikipedia-edi
t_x.htm

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, is tightening submission rules after a prominent journalist complained that an article falsely implicated him in the Kennedy assassinations.

http://www.cnn.com/2..a.rules.ap/index.htm

Wikipedia's procedural faults, complete anarchy as regards contributions, and sometimes-bizzare social rules do not teach people to become good researchers or writers... it teaches them how to be good Wikipedians, or to get the hell out.

http://ascii.textfil..archives/000100.html

and

http://ascii.textfil..archives/000060.html

Namely, one can make a good case that, when it comes to relatively specialized topics (outside of the interests of most of the contributors), the project's credibility is very uneven. If the project was lucky enough to have a writer or two well-informed about some specialized subject, and if their work was not degraded in quality by the majority of people, whose knowledge of the subject is based on paragraphs in books and mere mentions in college classes, then there might be a good, credible article on that specialized subject. Otherwise, there will be no article at all, a very amateurish-sounding article, or an article that looks like it might once have been pretty good, but which has been hacked to bits by hoi polloi.
...
The root problem: anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise.

http://www.kuro5hin...2004/12/30/142458/25

The article is rife with typographic errors, styling errors, and errors of grammar and diction. No doubt there are other factual errors as well, but I hardly needed to fact-check the piece to form my opinion. The writing is often awkward, and many sentences that are apparently meant to summarize some aspect of Hamilton's life or work betray the writer's lack of understanding of the subject matter. A representative one runs thus:

Arguably, he set the path for American economic and military greatness, though the benefits might be argued.

All these arguments aside, the article is what might be expected of a high school student, and at that it would be a C paper at best. Yet this article has been "edited" over 150 times.

(Robert McHenry is Former Editor in Chief, the Encyclopædia Britannica, and author of How to Know (Booklocker.com, 2004).)

http://www.techcentr..ion.com/111504A.html

Virtually all new ideas have only minority support, initially, and the majority will drown out the truth. In the Wikipedia, the earth still would be the center of the universe.

http://future.iftf.o..and_wikipedia_b.html

Larry Sanger conceded the point in Wired, "Because (Wikipedia) is a radically free, open project, it attracts an anarchistic element." Attracts is an understatement. Wikipedia's mired in "group think". Recalling descriptions of a Wikipedia forerunner, Robert McHenry says most computer collaborations are dominated by extremists, believing (editorial comments in original) their "noncommercial and collaborative project, was ipso facto superior to all existing encyclopedias, all of which were published for [shudder] profit and all of which had their origin in [shudder] print." As a result, Wikipedia's most reliable (albeit long) entries are about technology.

Wikipedia's third flaw may be fatal. Simply put, it's more liberal than the liberal media, as the (pro-geek) Institute for the Future blog Future Now concedes, "once ideological agendas are in play all bets are off."

http://nooilforpacif..ource-closed-minds.h
tml

I consider this entire episode a privacy violation. My only interest in trying to shape the article was to determine how much power I had to address this situation short of a deletion. I am now satisfied that I lack sufficient power, and ask that it remain deleted permanently.

http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/

---

Yes, the Wikipedia is a website where you can post information (and help create a free resource for all); however, even though the idea itself is wonderful (and its application has some merit), the site has shown itself unable to deal with the inevitable arguments which occur when one endeavors in academic collaboration – over time, the Wikipedia has become increasingly close-minded, biased, and hostile. As Corvus13 explained, “There appears to be some personal thing here; where if you're not part of the clique, you're not welcome.” In other words, as the site’s owner (Jimbo Wales) has so eloquently stated, anyone who criticizes the site is “a complete and total ass.”

“Wikipedians are too prone to... groupthink.” – Guanaco

http://www.kapitalis..oughts/wikipedia.htm

The type of articles that are most likely to fulfill Wikipedia's promise have three characteristics:

1. The truth is absolute, not subtle.
2. Everybody knows a little something about it, but few people know everything about it.
3. The subject is interesting enough to attract a steady stream of potential proofreaders.

http://users.erols.c..mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm

Then there is the question of scope and balance. I can find John McPhee, but only a brief reference to Gretel Ehrlich in a citation mentioning this famous essayist as a "neo-Luddite." A quick browse of the Web at large is enough to make me skeptical of that assessment. A quick search in the Gale Literature Resource Center, available through my university account, yielded four thorough discussions of Ehrlich. I haven't even touched the massive article databases I could reach through my public library or university card access.

Even if a fully fledged article about Gretel Ehrlich appeared immediately, as often happens when specific omissions are pointed out, this still stands as a oft-repeated observation about Wikipedia. It's fun, it's interesting, but like nearly all single works, it reflects the interests of the people creating it.

http://freerangelibr..052905/wikipedia.php

Wikipedia, for such a "democratic" tool, facilitates a one-answer mindset to scholarship.

Good encyclopedias already exist. Wikipedia is fixing a problem that isn’t there, and in doing so, with its endemic, unsolvable, inherent problems, it is revealing the naivete of its creators and the predictable characteristics of unmanaged electronic territory.

http://freerangelibr..ipedias_reality_.php

To what extent can you trust the information in Wikipedia?

I probed the question by inserting mistakes into Wikipedia, and seeing how long they took to be corrected. But before doing that, I wanted to make sure I inserted the right kind of mistakes: mistakes similar to ones which might sneak into Wikipedia either accidentally or on purpose under realistic conditions.

I made five changes between August 30 and September 3. Not one of the changes was removed by September 4th, when I reverted them myself. Every change was in Wikipedia for at least 20 hours, and the longest was in for five days.

http://www.frozennor..652809545/index.html

The Mail & Guardian Online asked experts to comment on some entries about South African subjects and assign marks out of 10.

Average Score: 6.5/10

http://www.mg.co.za/..0&area=/insight/ insight__national/

Wikipedia’s major problems include:

• Lack of Authenticity

• Systemic Biases

• Unnecessary Conflicts

• Tedious Debates

• Conformity and Groupthink

• Google Bombs (Search Engine Spam)

• Problematic Software

• Censorship

• Sockpuppet ‘Democracy’

• Poor Leadership

http://www.kapitalis..oughts/wikipedia.htm

The following is a manifesto against Wikipedia - against its pretensions to being encyclopedic; against its false claims of openness; against its representation of a democratic access to, and democratic enunciation of, knowledge; against its institutionalized falsification of facts; against its sordid attempts to monopolize knowledge and rewrite history by blanking out parts of our collective memory and replacing them with imprimaturs. Yes, those are all aspects of the cyberbureaucratic fraud that Wikipedia is committing wholesale upon knowledge. The fraud that consists of producing false knowledge on an encyclopedic scale.

from "Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance"
by
Paulo Correa, M.Sc., Ph.D.
Alexandra Correa, H.BA.
Malgosia Askanas, Ph.D.

ISBN 1-894840-36-4

http://www.aetherome..pedia/Section_I.html

The founder of the online encyclopedia written and edited by its users has admitted some of its entries are 'a horrific embarrassment'. What did our panel of experts think of the entries for their fields?

http://technology.gu..6541,1599325,00.html

[A]t a factual level it's unreliable, and the writing is often appalling. I wouldn't depend on it as a source, and I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a student writing a research paper.

http://www.roughtype../the_amorality_o.php

The Wikipedia entry on anarchism continues to promulgate false information about anarchism—it gives credence to the illogical “anarcho-capitalism” and validates that stupidity by referring to anarchists as “left-anarchists.” This demonstrates that the Wikipedia entry on “anarchism” is controlled by right wing libertarians and is not a reliable or accurate overview of anarchism.

http://chuck.mahost...blog/index.php?p=495

Wikipedia is useless in getting true information in most cases, it only demonstrates the folly of trying to achieve truth by group consensus.

http://www.corante.c..pedia_and_the_future
_of_social_computing.php

---

I decided to make a thread about Wikipedia: http://www.newground../topic.php?id=403658

Unfortunately someone decided to freeze it...

---

At 10/21/05 11:22 PM, DMXRoid wrote: Naziism is the natural result of socialism, and an example of the only environment in whcih socialism can thrive.

God, this thread is filled with the most ignorant statements on this message board to date.

Yea, let's come up with pseudo-smart-phrases and not back them up with anything.

Elephantism is a natural result of gigantism, and an exampe of the only environment in which the tuskan animals can thrive.

Seriously, your writing is shit. How is Nazism natural result of socialism? It's not like the natural result of eating will make you shit. Yea, if I think I'm superior to another group of people that's a derivative of my social policies.

Fuck you self-righteous know it all pimply teenagers who don't know what it's like to live in poverty and war and influenced by your fuck all pop culture and punk culture and education which is all generated by your capitalist society which gives you Internet so you can post on this fucking message board.

---

Shrapnel, calm down. We all have to recognize that the root of our anger comes from magic pixie dust spread by the Old Ones. But seriously- Nazism is a facistic, racist, homophobic and supernationalistic agenda pushed by those who seek power. It was effective in Germany due to the economic and political conditions brought upon by the worldwide depression of the late 1920s and 1930s and by Germany's defeat in WWI with the signing of the Versailles Treaty.

---

Anyone who thinks Naziism is a good thing should try and be a black homosexual and then go down to your local Nazi gang and talk civilised.

---

Blame the Jews! As hitler would once said.

---

At 12/27/05 11:30 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:
Technically the Allies declared war on them. Looking at Hitler's actions:
Austria: No deaths

Poland: Few deaths

ermmm. death camps? six million jews and millions more homosexuals, jypsies, disabled, communists and socialists killed. few?

you also failed to mention the 20 million russians killed for aryan 'living space'

---

At 12/28/05 10:00 AM, HomeGrownTurnip wrote: Blame the Jews! As hitler would once said.

Why don't you blame the idiots who did nothing!?!

---

Woo Pee DOODODLE DOO!!

Another Hitler-Debate-Thread. Jesus H CHRIST!

You guys almost make me sympathetic with the Nazi's.

At 10/22/05 01:01 AM, WHITEPOWER wrote: The Nazis killed my mother and raped my father.

I somehow find this reply highly amusing.

---

At 12/28/05 08:54 AM, Jinzoa wrote: Anyone who thinks Naziism is a good thing should try and be a black homosexual and then go down to your local Nazi gang and talk civilised.

Depends what type of Nazi organization your talking about. The man you describe would certainly be welcome among the ranks of the these three units:

http://www.blackpanther.org/

http://www.nazi.org/

http://www.theblacknationalist.com/

---

At 12/27/05 09:33 AM, Jinzoa wrote: my god that guy was a complete idiot, Naziism is stupid due to many reasons.

1. need i mention the millions of jews killed and other types(homosexuals etc) who were killed unjustly for no humane reason.

The Jews were mass murdered because the Nazis were unable to deport them, and many still refused to leave. Since there was no other way to remove them from Europe, they removed the life from their bodies and returned them to the Earth.

At 12/27/05 09:33 AM, Jinzoa wrote: 2.started war with neighbouring countries for no sane reason.

The reason was to unite ethnic Germans from non-German areas (Poland) under one empire, and then to defend it (France, Africa, Middle East), while expanding into new areas for both land and resources (USSR). What is so insane about wanting to create a better civlization for your people? In that case the Nazis are just as insane as the ancient Romans, Greeks, Mesopotamians, etc.

At 12/27/05 09:33 AM, Jinzoa wrote: 3.need i mention their arrogance due to their racism,homophobia and any other things.

I'll admit one of the problems of the Third Reich was that the Propaganda Ministry headed by Goebbels demonized the Jews unfairly. However, such a thing may have been neccessary to unite the Germans together against the Jews so that they could expel both them and their ideas (egalitarianism, marxism, other "progressive breakthroughs" that are currently destroying civilization and the planet it exists on).

At 12/27/05 09:33 AM, Jinzoa wrote: 4.they are pig headed believing their"Race is better"

In the context of Germany and German society, no race is better than the Germans. Just like in Israel, no race is better than the Jews, the Chinese for China, etc. Part of nationalism is recognizing that foreign elements have to be removed so that the whole isn't compromised by mixing or invasion - it's not a matter of "like" or "dislike".

At 12/27/05 09:33 AM, Jinzoa wrote: 5.they are again close minded due to their stance to other religions.

The Nazis weren't a fan of Judaism or Christianity - and I agree with them on this. Part of the mission of the Nazis was to create an Indo-European empire that would exist in Natural harmony with the earth. Semitic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) distance man from nature and the higher values held by great civilizations such as Rome and Egypt (that creating better structure and organizational hierarchy is more important than one's own life or the life of others). It makes sense that the Nazis would have to reject Christianity or at least work it out to be more compatible with the values of the ancients (Middle Ages Europe anyone?)

At 12/27/05 09:33 AM, Jinzoa wrote: 6.they killed people in wars they started for no sane reason.

They killed people because they wanted to create a better Germany, as well as a better German people. Again, structure and organization is more important than abstract moral concepts such as "lives".

---

Nazis squeal like little bitches..

---

At 12/31/05 12:53 AM, Misdemonar wrote: Nazis squeal like little bitches..

you dont know 1 national socialist. not one and youve never heard any. youd get decapitated by one if you were man enough to say it to ones face. if all of you are such great anti nazis then why dont you go kick some of their ass instead of sitting around here crying? like it or not Hitler achieved more than all of you taken together and all your families will ever achieve. admire greatness.

---

At 12/31/05 01:04 AM, Slav_Troll wrote:
like it or not Hitler achieved more than all of you taken together and all your families will ever achieve. admire greatness.

LOL!!! Let the Liberal bitching and screaming begin!

Haha, but seriously though, it's nice to see someone who can view Hitler and the Nazis objectively every once and awhile as opposed to just following the herd that operates based on a mechanism of popularity and low self-esteem

---

At 12/31/05 01:04 AM, Slav_Troll wrote:

At 12/31/05 12:53 AM, Misdemonar wrote: Nazis squeal like little bitches..

you dont know 1 national socialist.

I know plenty,

---

At 12/31/05 01:17 AM, Misdemonar wrote:

At 12/31/05 01:04 AM, Slav_Troll wrote:

At 12/31/05 12:53 AM, Misdemonar wrote: Nazis squeal like little bitches..

you dont know 1 national socialist.

I know plenty,

But do those "National Socialists" you know actually know anything about National Socialism, or even history? It's sad and pathetic to see that a lot of people who call themselves Nazis or White Nationalists or whatever are just as stupid, uneducated, and obeses as the sheep-like crowd that automatically regurgitate the propaganda they've been fed.

---

Here's one

http://img514.images..ge=gaybastard5tb.jpg

---

Maybe you're right....

---

Here is an example of an organization that actually incorporates National Socialism in a proper, intelligent manner:

http://www.lnsg.org

People of all different ethnicities are welcome, as NS can be applied in any nation to preserve tradition, race, culture, and the environment, in the age of Plastic and Globalisation.

Also, http://www.zionists.com

---

there is plenty of idiots who claim to be "nazis". there are plenty who claim to be punk or any form of oi. There are plenty of stupid white people and black also. its not to be generalized.

---

One would think that if the "accepting" Nazi parties were trying to present a good image they would at least find a new symbol for themselves. Hell, even a new name. Just get rid of the word "Nazi," and they'll have supporters in no time.

As for Hitler's Nazism, the propaganda structure entirely revolved around the belief in an absolute existance of an Aryan race that existed way back when and ransacked the Indus river valley (and yet somehow still had blonde hair and white skin?). In the 1920's an expeditionary force was sent to Nepal to look for evidence of the race, and they came back with entirely fabricated material (known or unknown to Hitler) that was then used to provide the entire structure of the Nazi's propaganda machine (with the Jews later thrown in). They even said there was some lost Atlantis-style Aryan island somewhere. Hitler wanted a kind of (twisted) epic, noble, medieval society, with knights and castles and whatnot, and him on top. That was going to be his Aryan utopia.

But what it looks like you are arguing here (I may have misinterpreted, you could also just be trying to be "counter-culture" and go against the tide of intellectual wannabes fighting against Nazism) is that the means justify the end. None of the motives, none of Hitler's aspirations to greatness, none of the "benefits" of the Nazi war machine matter. In the end millions were killed. I'm sure you must have heard Stalin's quote, "The death of one is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic." Millions of mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews, neices, and grandparents were killed because Hitler's message, whatever it was originally, became twisted into what is now the Holocaust. They are not just a number; they all had feelings and thoughts, and most of all they all felt pain. And that message of hatred is continued today through several racial, sexual, and religious intolerant Nazi groups, that would like nothing more than for anyone other than their own to be wiped off of the face of the planet. It doesn't matter how you look at it, with any kind of moral standard. As a -rational, sane- human, when that many people are killed, it should be viewed as nothing more than evil. Thinking there was nothing wrong with that many deaths is not unique or intellectual, it is just insane.

What Hitler achieved might have been greatness at the time, but now we call it "infamy." Hated by many, and with good reason.

---

At 10/21/05 09:10 PM, sark88 wrote: And just for the record there IS a hell of a difference between a Nazi and a racist and I deplore any idiotic sub human that says otherwise

Technically yes. Nazi-ism IS the exact same as fascism, but the only difference is that Nazi-ism emphasizes racism whereas fascism doesn't. Though racists don't always want a fascist government. Still, all Nazis are racists even though not all racists are Nazis.

---

At 12/31/05 12:38 AM, Mighty_Genghis wrote: The Jews were mass murdered because the Nazis were unable to deport them, and many still refused to leave. Since there was no other way to remove them from Europe, they removed the life from their bodies and returned them to the Earth.

What kind of a stupid reason is that?! The Jews has the full right to live in Germany as German citizens, the Germans shouldn't try to make the Jews leave. Even if they do have the right to make them leave (and they don't), it doesn't give them the right to kill them in order to do so.

The reason was to unite ethnic Germans from non-German areas (Poland) under one empire, and then to defend it (France, Africa, Middle East), while expanding into new areas for both land and resources (USSR). What is so insane about wanting to create a better civlization for your people? In that case the Nazis are just as insane as the ancient Romans, Greeks, Mesopotamians, etc.

The fact is that it is insane to start a war for no actual reason. Why would they want to unite the Germans with the Polish if they claim that the Polish race is ruining the Arian one? Besides, Hitler's goal was to control all of Europ, he was also sure that in a few years there would be a war between Germany and USA to control the world, this is, I suppose, completely sane. Besides, everyone knows that the real reason for the war to start was that germany had to pay so much in the former war, so it wasn't the real goal of the war. The insane thing about making the world better for your people is that you ruin everything else in the way. Besides, do you think that the Germans had a great time in the war and before it? The nazism wasn't such a great way to rule a country, wasn't it?

I'll admit one of the problems of the Third Reich was that the Propaganda Ministry headed by Goebbels demonized the Jews unfairly. However, such a thing may have been neccessary to unite the Germans together against the Jews so that they could expel both them and their ideas (egalitarianism, marxism, other "progressive breakthroughs" that are currently destroying civilization and the planet it exists on).

Again, you are saying things so stupid that it is almost funny. You are claiming that the German nazis did all of this in order to expel the Jews and things like that. No one says that it is incorrect, the nazis did everything to harm the Jews, but we are saying that it is wrong! They shouldn't harm the Jews, they have no right to do so, the Jews has the full right to live in Germany with the same rights as any other civil there.

In the context of Germany and German society, no race is better than the Germans. Just like in Israel, no race is better than the Jews, the Chinese for China, etc. Part of nationalism is recognizing that foreign elements have to be removed so that the whole isn't compromised by mixing or invasion - it's not a matter of "like" or "dislike".

First of all, the Jews don't believe that no-one is better than the Jewish race. the Jews don't even see race as a factor for anything. The Jews do believe that they are religiously the chosen people by god, but they still don't think that they are better than the rest of the people. Maybe they did thousends of years ago, but they ceased a long long time ago. Are you compairing 19th century Germany to ancient Israel? How smart of you!

The Nazis weren't a fan of Judaism or Christianity - and I agree with them on this. Part of the mission of the Nazis was to create an Indo-European empire that would exist in Natural harmony with the earth. Semitic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) distance man from nature and the higher values held by great civilizations such as Rome and Egypt (that creating better structure and organizational hierarchy is more important than one's own life or the life of others). It makes sense that the Nazis would have to reject Christianity or at least work it out to be more compatible with the values of the ancients (Middle Ages Europe anyone?)

Well, I can't even start answering that, because that is just a big bunch of lies and foolishness. Once again, you change their mission and you support their plan to destroy the jews.

They killed people because they wanted to create a better Germany, as well as a better German people. Again, structure and organization is more important than abstract moral concepts such as "lives".

Well, do you call it a sane reason?! How can you call the murder of millions of people in order not to let them mix with the German race a sane reason?!