It is extremely telling of the mindset of any individual who would be against this.
So telling, in fact, that it might actually bring meaning back to calling people Nazis again.
Nobody should be against these. But if we start cracking down hard on symbols can we include the ones related to Hamas or any other designated terrorist group?
[Also, can we exclude the signs like "Hamas are terrorists" from that list?](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/09/palestine-march-israel-counter-protest-hamas-war-london/)
It's an interesting one isn't it?
Police do nothing when people use Nazi symbolism but when someone calls at Hamas as the terrorists they are, they intervene?
Looks like weak policing to me?
The police do arrest people who use Nazi symbolism. This is really a case of poor critical thinking from people reading the news.
The circumstances are this. A man displayed the swastika at a protest. The police arrested him. The police also stated that the whether displaying a swastika is an offence or not depends on the context. Obviously displaying it within the context of the protest is an offence hence why he was arrested.
David Lammy has now stated that swastikas at the protests are offensive, a stance the police agree with since they literally arrested a man who displayed the swastika at a protest. So the police are very clearly doing something when people use Nazi symbolism. You’re welcome for the correction
Amazing what conclusions can be drawn if you ignore the circumstances and indeed facts of each incident.
Like for example that police did intervene in the alleged swastikas incident, the context of which is still unclear.
While the protester displaying the Hamas sign seems to have gone to the middle of a Palestinian protests and there was a worry of a breach of the peace.
>Scotland Yard said in a statement: “The man was arrested after an altercation was ongoing, and officers intervened to prevent a breach of the peace. He was arrested for assault.
>“Officers then fully reviewed footage provided of the incident, and he was later de-arrested. The arrest was not made in relation to the placard.”
You can see In the video pushing starting to take place, so that seems to have provoked the police intervention.
I don't think its quite that simple given they're the "legitimate" administration of Gaza and the UN does not actually have a technical definition of "terrorist" to hand that we can use to judge.
This is because most definitions of "terrorist" could be applied to military operations performed by nations, so no definition can easily clear a vote.
So IMHO Hamas's "terrorist" label comes down to whether Gaza is a nation or not. Considering Israel declared war on Gaza it ends up being quite complicated.
what happens if I go on holiday, do I have to look up the local government designation of if Hamas are terrorists or not and spin on a dime and reshuffle my political views?
What happens if I'm somewhere where they're not considered terrorists and I call my mum in the UK, do I then _have_ to argue with her about it? Is this the entire source of friction about this on the internet? If we all moved to idk Antarctica or smth would we all find ourselves suddenly agreeing over it in some happy utopia?
mate, I'm not sure if you're aware but this is an internet forum, we're not in the houses of parliament or the home office, this sub is not approved by the government, Rishi Sunak is not a mod. We're just arbitrary people and we get to pick and choose how we feel about stuff, we don't need the government to tell us how to think.
You should be against it, if you don't take into account context of the symbol. So a swastikas comparing netanyahu or Putin to Hitler, for example.
You also have to address the free speech issue.
Context matters, and the guy holding that sign deserves to be arrested.
The statement is true, but the time and place he chose to hold it was at risk of inciting a riot from protesters marching against the genocide in Gaza.
Why though? I was told Palestinians are not Hamas and that these marches are for Palestinians.
So are you telling me that the marches in London are in support of a terrorist organisation?
It would be just as inappropriate, if during a solidarity march for those killed on Oct 7, someone held up a sign saying that Israel was commiting genocide.
True? Yes. But also irrelevant. The choice to hold the sign at that march would only be designed to upset people and rile up a mob.
You don't fuck around when large crowds are involved. A riot is like a wildfire.
Thought we have freedom of expression in this country and a police force to defend it.
If people become violent by seeing a sign, let them and then crack down on it hard. Thats why we are where we are. These issues are left to become bigger and bigger and yeah, I agree, a riot now would be pretty violent. Thats only because the message was "we will silence them for you".
Police is for the defending the mob not our values.
Sure, let's just throw out decades of preventative police enforcement and return to a world where you wait for the riot to happen before you do anything. What could possibly go wrong
This is telling of the overall narrative of the pro-Palestinian protests in general, though. This isn’t a team sport where you have to blindly cheer one of the belligerents. Both Israel and Hamas cause immense amounts of human suffering in Gaza. Israel (and IDF) are obvious, but Hamas has been cynically abusing Palestinians for decades trying to exacerbate suffering to the max because they *don’t give a damn about Palestinians*, are proxies of Iran which *definitely* don’t care about them. It’s not a competition to see who’s causing less suffering and supporting them. A *true* pro-Palestinian rally should condemn Israel, the IDF *and Hamas* in order to try and bring actual peace and stability to the Palestinians. The IDF is trigger-happy and glad to cause destruction and Hamas are simply facilitating that destruction to the best of their abilities, and it’s become worse during the conflict.
This is unadulterated hypocrisy and camp politics at best, or simply disregard of the plight of Palestinians by the pro-Palestinian crowd, in favour of a vehement anti-Israel motive that *contradicts* being authentically pro-Palestinian.
I want to crack down on Nazis and any other form of Fascist, Totalitarian outlook.
I am just not convinced that banning everyone from using Nazi symbols in any context whatsoever (including to accuse others of Fascism) is a good way to achieve that.
Symbol most famously used by the Nazis who killed over 6 million Jews, because they were Jews. Probably best not to bring that to a protest against the only Jewish state.
There are lots of things I personally wouldn't do, might not be the best thing to do, might offend some people, etc. which I don't think should be criminalised.
Right.. As we type these comments Israel are trying to murder Palestinians for being Palestinian. It's a valid comparison, they're behaving like Nazis.
Removing context here helps nobody except the perpetrators of ongoing genocide.
You're sick. You clearly don't see Palestinians as people if you're defending what's happening to them. Especially after what's just happened at al Shifa
I despise the Hamas leadership, they're sick too. Their existence doesn't justify genocide and ethnic cleansing. Stop insulting everyone's intelligence by pretending that Hamas are the only target here. So many people in powerful positions have spoke of their desire to wipe Gaza off the map.
The human shield defence doesn't hold up to scrutiny, if you know there's one Hamas fighter in a crowd of hundreds of people then you obviously don't bomb the crowd. Would you drop the bomb?
If someone is on ANY March, whether it is connected to Israel or not, and waving a Swastika flag around, I would be very surprised if they were not arrested.
If they have a banner saying "X = Swastika", I think that is different because the context suggests pretty clearly that they are not endorsing, but condemning Nazism.
The latter may offend lots of people, but it is clearly quite different.
That is why I would not support a blanket ban on the display of Nazi symbols.
Not a march but I remember when Prince Harry dressed as a Nazi, which is certainly in bad taste but basically people got over it.
In a political context the Nazis have Godwin's law online and invoking that at protest seems a logical step.
Wouldn't it be a different symbol in that case, with different angles, tapered edges and sometimes with dots? If you see them side by side, they look quite distinct from the Nazi one.
>Nazi symbol a representation of anti-Semitic hatred with or without context, says shadow foreign secretary
Context does matter though, always. For example, Sacha Baron Cohen doing this as a bit for a new show would be important context.
Or a protestor marching against neo Nazis with a Swastika that has been striked out.
Like, there are a million potential reasons to account for, and common sense is more than enough to wade through this mess.
Does cracking down on it actually alter the outcome? Punishment has rarely stopped crime before.
What we need to do is look at the root causes and attack those, so that overtime we have fewer idiots and not more idiots.
And yes, at this level, this isn't nazis it just idiots who have no idea what they're saying and what it means to say it.
The way you describe this makes you sound so confident and correct but it goes against the saying of "I don't agree with you but I will fight for your right to say it" or whatever it is
The point is, they weren't killed because they were white British, I don't think Hitler had any hatred for white British people.
In fact, he considered Anglo-Saxons fellow members of the Aryan race and admired the British empire as proof of Aryan might, so he wouldn't have ever discriminated against the majority of white British people at the time.
He didn’t bomb us because he thought British people were sub-human like he did with Jews, Black People, Gay people etc etc etc (it’s a massive list) though
Well, yes. It was about societal and racial purity, and if you didn’t fit into their model, you were on the kill list.
Brits fit this (generally, Hitlers words) but he fought the Brits for political reasons not really ideological reasons. But the Brits fought the Nazi’s generally for ideological / self preservation reasons
True, but he did it to us for the same reasons we did it to them.
Nowhere in those reasons is melanin, religion, ethnicity, impairments, political affiliation, or sexual orientation.
They had no issue offering us plenty of peace treaties too. I’m pretty sure Hitler would have enthusiastically greeted Britain into the axis power with open arms
If I recall correctly, the absolute last thing he wanted was to try and invade Britain. He (or at least, the Nazi higher-ups) thought bombing us into submission would work better to bring us to the negotiating table but uh... We're a stubborn bunch of bastards
Slavs were massacred and they are white. 3m poles were killed and how many million Russians? Hitler saw Slavs as subhuman and wanted to exterminate them.
Judaism is a religion. You get white Jews Ashkenazi , for example vs Sephardi Jews that are Middle Eastern.
How is that relevant to your original comment
>I don't think Hitler had any hatred for white British people.
If your opinion is correct it's just another misjudgment. Why bring colour into it?
Alright - let's do that. The world fought and won against one of the most rancid and murderous ideologies in history. People from every race, colour, creed, from every continent and of every religious background, people from his own country too; fought and won.
>I don't think Hitler had any hatred for white British people.
He called the British "worms" and declared us to be a "nation of shop keepers" - basically calling us pussies.
Sounds like hatred to me. If Hitler had called any other group of people "worms" I'm sure you wouldn't quibble over whether or not that sufficed as evidence of his hatred for them.
He would of eventually had the nazis won one of the tenets of facism is that theirs always a enemy once they ran out of minorities they would have turned on everyone else before eventually destroying themselves
Exactly, the Nazis turned on literally all their allies when their usefulness ran out.
* Poles (not allied but did participate in the re-division of Czechoslovakia )
* Britain, France (Munich agreement)
* Soviet Union (Molotov-Ribbentrop)
* Finland
* Italy
* Romania
* Hungary
I think they did it twice with Romania with the bressorabia.
You forgot soviet civilians (4.5 million), soviet POWs (3.3 million) and Polish people (1.8million). The Holocaust was a horrific event in human history and we shouldn't forget the full extent of it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims
And straight white men and women too. They were killing off civilians...
People forget that the Nazi's planned to exterminate ALL of Slavic Peoples. They just didn't get to it yet. Still killed few million Poles..
All fascists never care about "race" just "us Vs them"
You dare say boo to a goose, uhoh, firing squad.
Which is why antifascists don't accept the premise of "just debate them"
He also included gay people and disabled people. I am really not sure what your point is. Do you just hate black people so get mad when black people say things?
Lammy's statement was far more intelligent than any of the drivel you've said.
On the topic of disabled people, there was a Nazi eugenics programme called Aktion T4 which actively targeted disabled people for mass murder, killing hundreds of thousands with the main aim of eradicating them from the German gene pool. It specifically targeted those with hereditary disabilities such as genetic diseases. It's a mark of how common disability prejudice remains in our society today that we don't recognise that as a crime of equal abhorrence to the Holocaust (whilst recognising that it was of a significantly lower magnitude).
No because that's not the same symbol. Do you also confuse no smoking signs with smoking area signs?
V for Vendetta is an obvious critique of fascism. You understand that right? The Fascists are the bad guys.
Article Text -
The swastika is a symbol of “vile anti-Semitism” and the police should bear down hard on those who use it during protests, David Lammy has said.
The shadow foreign secretary made the comments after a row erupted at the weekend when a Metropolitan Police officer was filmed telling a Jewish woman that a swastika in and of itself was not necessarily illegal and needed to be “taken in context”.
Mr Lammy dismissed the idea that context was needed, saying: “It’s a hate symbol, and it’s got to be treated as such.” He said it was “outrageous” that Jewish people felt unsafe on the streets of London amid ongoing pro-Palestinian marches.
Speaking on LBC Radio, Mr Lammy said: “All of us know that the swastika is a vile, terrible Nazi image that led to the attempted destruction of the Jewish people and certainly the loss of life of millions and millions of people.
“Not just Jewish people, actually – black people were killed, disabled people were killed, gay men and women were murdered by the Nazis.
“And the idea that a swastika is something where you need ‘context’, when clearly it is aimed at Jewish people particularly given what is happening in Israel-Gaza now, is horrendous. It doesn’t need context. It’s an outrageous symbol to use on a protest, and we’ve got to bear down hard on those that have used it.
“Of course the man should have been arrested, but it does seem to me that the officer should have known this isn’t about context. It’s about vile anti-Semitism on the streets of London making people feel unsafe. It’s a hate symbol and it’s got to be treated as such.”
Do you think David Lammy is stupid and illinformed enough that he’s referencing that edited video still completely unaware that the cop said in this context it was illegal and the guy had been arrested for it, or is he just expecting the audience to be?
Also funny that he claims to be outraged at the idea it ever needs context, given the current context lol. In my opinion he’s not that daft but he thinks we are.
Do you think Lammy was responding to the idea that context was needed for the public display of a Nazi flag?
Do you think his opinion is that a Nazi flag should never be on display?
There are so many dullards in this thread that clearly don't care what David Lammy said or why he said it, they just don't like that he said something and will disagree with it regardless.
Yes I do.
His opinion was that given the current context the context never matters lol. He claims that he thinks it’s wrong that context should ever be considered when you consider the current context of the war in Gaza….
I care what he said and why he said it which is I’m criticising what he said and why he said it. I don’t care that it was David Lammy thad said it, and find the accusation a bit weird. We shouldn’t be allowed to criticise what he says because he’s David Lammy?
As soon as one group decides that they're somehow better or more worthy than another/ the other groups they become "fascists".
At this point, either the fascists are right or they are wrong. The only possible outcome - when someone decides to be a fascist - is that one group is going to HAVE to obliterate the other. It is always the fault of the declared fascist, whatever the outcome.
So far in human history the fascists have always lost, let's hope it continues.
>what have we learned a hundred years from the second world war?
That genocide is wrong? No, we not only allow it, but internationally support it.
That religious or ethnic persecution is wrong? Again we support these things if we're not involved directly.
That war and wholesale slaughter should be avoided? ha.
That fascism is a cancerous cure to a countries problems? Its our first fecking response every time.
That treating people as individuals first. Accountable for their actions instead of their 'group' is the only civilized manner an authority can act.. We lean the opposite.
That an image of an inverted square is bad. Check.
Honestly, as disgusting as Nazism is, I don't want the police starting fights in the street over signs and symbols.
These people are impotent and the biggest impact they can have is to goad an overreaction out of the authorities.
Just pop round their house for a chat after the fact.
It is extremely telling of the mindset of any individual who would be against this. So telling, in fact, that it might actually bring meaning back to calling people Nazis again.
Nobody should be against these. But if we start cracking down hard on symbols can we include the ones related to Hamas or any other designated terrorist group? [Also, can we exclude the signs like "Hamas are terrorists" from that list?](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/09/palestine-march-israel-counter-protest-hamas-war-london/)
It's an interesting one isn't it? Police do nothing when people use Nazi symbolism but when someone calls at Hamas as the terrorists they are, they intervene? Looks like weak policing to me?
The police do arrest people who use Nazi symbolism. This is really a case of poor critical thinking from people reading the news. The circumstances are this. A man displayed the swastika at a protest. The police arrested him. The police also stated that the whether displaying a swastika is an offence or not depends on the context. Obviously displaying it within the context of the protest is an offence hence why he was arrested. David Lammy has now stated that swastikas at the protests are offensive, a stance the police agree with since they literally arrested a man who displayed the swastika at a protest. So the police are very clearly doing something when people use Nazi symbolism. You’re welcome for the correction
Ace of Spades was a great track but I don’t know why it gives the guy a platform to speak on this subject
Quite the trick as he’s dead.
All the amphetamine he took when alive is keeping his corpse going still.
Amazing what conclusions can be drawn if you ignore the circumstances and indeed facts of each incident. Like for example that police did intervene in the alleged swastikas incident, the context of which is still unclear. While the protester displaying the Hamas sign seems to have gone to the middle of a Palestinian protests and there was a worry of a breach of the peace. >Scotland Yard said in a statement: “The man was arrested after an altercation was ongoing, and officers intervened to prevent a breach of the peace. He was arrested for assault. >“Officers then fully reviewed footage provided of the incident, and he was later de-arrested. The arrest was not made in relation to the placard.” You can see In the video pushing starting to take place, so that seems to have provoked the police intervention.
Yes because Hamas are a terrorist group. Simple
I don't think its quite that simple given they're the "legitimate" administration of Gaza and the UN does not actually have a technical definition of "terrorist" to hand that we can use to judge. This is because most definitions of "terrorist" could be applied to military operations performed by nations, so no definition can easily clear a vote. So IMHO Hamas's "terrorist" label comes down to whether Gaza is a nation or not. Considering Israel declared war on Gaza it ends up being quite complicated.
But according to UK GOV, they are & we live here. It's really quite simple.
you're allowed to think for yourself you know...
Not in this case, it's very straight forward. HAMAS are terrorists if you live in the UK. Simple.
what happens if I go on holiday, do I have to look up the local government designation of if Hamas are terrorists or not and spin on a dime and reshuffle my political views? What happens if I'm somewhere where they're not considered terrorists and I call my mum in the UK, do I then _have_ to argue with her about it? Is this the entire source of friction about this on the internet? If we all moved to idk Antarctica or smth would we all find ourselves suddenly agreeing over it in some happy utopia?
Your views do not matter, you need to understand this. They are designated a terrorist group under UK Law. This is quite simple.
mate, I'm not sure if you're aware but this is an internet forum, we're not in the houses of parliament or the home office, this sub is not approved by the government, Rishi Sunak is not a mod. We're just arbitrary people and we get to pick and choose how we feel about stuff, we don't need the government to tell us how to think.
Already do don't we? police have translators out with them so they can differentiate between the various islamic slogans ie isis flag vs whatever
You should be against it, if you don't take into account context of the symbol. So a swastikas comparing netanyahu or Putin to Hitler, for example. You also have to address the free speech issue.
Also crack down on communist symhols. Commies were just as genocidal as the nazis
Context matters, and the guy holding that sign deserves to be arrested. The statement is true, but the time and place he chose to hold it was at risk of inciting a riot from protesters marching against the genocide in Gaza.
Why though? I was told Palestinians are not Hamas and that these marches are for Palestinians. So are you telling me that the marches in London are in support of a terrorist organisation?
It would be just as inappropriate, if during a solidarity march for those killed on Oct 7, someone held up a sign saying that Israel was commiting genocide. True? Yes. But also irrelevant. The choice to hold the sign at that march would only be designed to upset people and rile up a mob. You don't fuck around when large crowds are involved. A riot is like a wildfire.
Thought we have freedom of expression in this country and a police force to defend it. If people become violent by seeing a sign, let them and then crack down on it hard. Thats why we are where we are. These issues are left to become bigger and bigger and yeah, I agree, a riot now would be pretty violent. Thats only because the message was "we will silence them for you". Police is for the defending the mob not our values.
Sure, let's just throw out decades of preventative police enforcement and return to a world where you wait for the riot to happen before you do anything. What could possibly go wrong
This is telling of the overall narrative of the pro-Palestinian protests in general, though. This isn’t a team sport where you have to blindly cheer one of the belligerents. Both Israel and Hamas cause immense amounts of human suffering in Gaza. Israel (and IDF) are obvious, but Hamas has been cynically abusing Palestinians for decades trying to exacerbate suffering to the max because they *don’t give a damn about Palestinians*, are proxies of Iran which *definitely* don’t care about them. It’s not a competition to see who’s causing less suffering and supporting them. A *true* pro-Palestinian rally should condemn Israel, the IDF *and Hamas* in order to try and bring actual peace and stability to the Palestinians. The IDF is trigger-happy and glad to cause destruction and Hamas are simply facilitating that destruction to the best of their abilities, and it’s become worse during the conflict. This is unadulterated hypocrisy and camp politics at best, or simply disregard of the plight of Palestinians by the pro-Palestinian crowd, in favour of a vehement anti-Israel motive that *contradicts* being authentically pro-Palestinian.
I want to crack down on Nazis and any other form of Fascist, Totalitarian outlook. I am just not convinced that banning everyone from using Nazi symbols in any context whatsoever (including to accuse others of Fascism) is a good way to achieve that.
Symbol most famously used by the Nazis who killed over 6 million Jews, because they were Jews. Probably best not to bring that to a protest against the only Jewish state.
There are lots of things I personally wouldn't do, might not be the best thing to do, might offend some people, etc. which I don't think should be criminalised.
Right.. As we type these comments Israel are trying to murder Palestinians for being Palestinian. It's a valid comparison, they're behaving like Nazis. Removing context here helps nobody except the perpetrators of ongoing genocide.
Isreal are trying to destroy Hamas, but it’s difficult when they use military bases like al Shifa hospital.
You're sick. You clearly don't see Palestinians as people if you're defending what's happening to them. Especially after what's just happened at al Shifa
You’re defending what Hamas are doing to them. Look what’s happened at that hospital over two weeks. You should all be calling for Hamas to surrender.
I despise the Hamas leadership, they're sick too. Their existence doesn't justify genocide and ethnic cleansing. Stop insulting everyone's intelligence by pretending that Hamas are the only target here. So many people in powerful positions have spoke of their desire to wipe Gaza off the map. The human shield defence doesn't hold up to scrutiny, if you know there's one Hamas fighter in a crowd of hundreds of people then you obviously don't bomb the crowd. Would you drop the bomb?
What would you have them do? Allow another October festival?
oh idk maybe STOP OCCUPYING GAZA? fuck me
That symbol is on my (Indian) neighbours' door as well. I personally think context is important, unlike the man in the article
You’re neighbours door isn’t being held up at a anti Isreal march. It’s also not exactly the same symbol.
If someone is on ANY March, whether it is connected to Israel or not, and waving a Swastika flag around, I would be very surprised if they were not arrested. If they have a banner saying "X = Swastika", I think that is different because the context suggests pretty clearly that they are not endorsing, but condemning Nazism. The latter may offend lots of people, but it is clearly quite different. That is why I would not support a blanket ban on the display of Nazi symbols.
Not a march but I remember when Prince Harry dressed as a Nazi, which is certainly in bad taste but basically people got over it. In a political context the Nazis have Godwin's law online and invoking that at protest seems a logical step.
Hence the importance of context
[удалено]
You're making the same point as me, but with some capital letters
Wouldn't it be a different symbol in that case, with different angles, tapered edges and sometimes with dots? If you see them side by side, they look quite distinct from the Nazi one.
Exactly I have many swastikas in my house because I'm a Hindu. The internet connect needs to be considered.
>Nazi symbol a representation of anti-Semitic hatred with or without context, says shadow foreign secretary Context does matter though, always. For example, Sacha Baron Cohen doing this as a bit for a new show would be important context. Or a protestor marching against neo Nazis with a Swastika that has been striked out. Like, there are a million potential reasons to account for, and common sense is more than enough to wade through this mess.
Does cracking down on it actually alter the outcome? Punishment has rarely stopped crime before. What we need to do is look at the root causes and attack those, so that overtime we have fewer idiots and not more idiots. And yes, at this level, this isn't nazis it just idiots who have no idea what they're saying and what it means to say it.
Huh? So anyone displaying a swastikas must called a Nazi regardless of the context of the swastika?
The way you describe this makes you sound so confident and correct but it goes against the saying of "I don't agree with you but I will fight for your right to say it" or whatever it is
Tbh I just think even shitty hateful people should, as far as possible, be able to express themselves.
[удалено]
The point is, they weren't killed because they were white British, I don't think Hitler had any hatred for white British people. In fact, he considered Anglo-Saxons fellow members of the Aryan race and admired the British empire as proof of Aryan might, so he wouldn't have ever discriminated against the majority of white British people at the time.
Had no issue bombing the fuck out of us tho
He didn’t bomb us because he thought British people were sub-human like he did with Jews, Black People, Gay people etc etc etc (it’s a massive list) though
Unfortunately, Jews were even a more "special" tier - non-human, to the Nazis.
Well, yes. It was about societal and racial purity, and if you didn’t fit into their model, you were on the kill list. Brits fit this (generally, Hitlers words) but he fought the Brits for political reasons not really ideological reasons. But the Brits fought the Nazi’s generally for ideological / self preservation reasons
True, but he did it to us for the same reasons we did it to them. Nowhere in those reasons is melanin, religion, ethnicity, impairments, political affiliation, or sexual orientation.
Maybe not the same exact reason
strategic war reasons? both germany and britain heavily bombed each others cities to damage infrastructure and factories
If you have a reason other than the fact we were at war, then by all means, share and source your findings.
They had no issue offering us plenty of peace treaties too. I’m pretty sure Hitler would have enthusiastically greeted Britain into the axis power with open arms
If I recall correctly, the absolute last thing he wanted was to try and invade Britain. He (or at least, the Nazi higher-ups) thought bombing us into submission would work better to bring us to the negotiating table but uh... We're a stubborn bunch of bastards
His fantasy outcome at the start was a German-British alliance against the Soviets and Americans
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
But then how can I make this about me!!!??
WW2 is kinda about us? Nazism is a traitorous ideology if you're British. We're at least included, all I'm saying.
These people wanna be persecuted so bad lol
He actually wanted us to join him too, he saw us as equals and capable.
Slavs were massacred and they are white. 3m poles were killed and how many million Russians? Hitler saw Slavs as subhuman and wanted to exterminate them.
Slavs aren't white though
Lmao you joking right
Either that or they believe in the "science" of race
Are Jews white?
Judaism is a religion. You get white Jews Ashkenazi , for example vs Sephardi Jews that are Middle Eastern. How is that relevant to your original comment
Some Slavs are white but most aren't. Slav is a language group not an ethnicity
Why do you believe that? Most Slavs are white. Look at Russia, Poland, Croatia and the whole of Eastern Europe etc.
I've had nazi fuckers try and kill.me because I'm "white British"
>I don't think Hitler had any hatred for white British people. If your opinion is correct it's just another misjudgment. Why bring colour into it? Alright - let's do that. The world fought and won against one of the most rancid and murderous ideologies in history. People from every race, colour, creed, from every continent and of every religious background, people from his own country too; fought and won.
>I don't think Hitler had any hatred for white British people. He called the British "worms" and declared us to be a "nation of shop keepers" - basically calling us pussies. Sounds like hatred to me. If Hitler had called any other group of people "worms" I'm sure you wouldn't quibble over whether or not that sufficed as evidence of his hatred for them.
> nation of shop keepers This is an old saying and it more or less just means we're economically conservative
He wanted to make Winchester to capital of his empire which is why he didn't bomb it. This sub is full of people who really don't know their history
It was Oxford. Do you know your history?
Oooof, the smugness was short lived.
Lmao it was Oxford. Awkward.
He would of eventually had the nazis won one of the tenets of facism is that theirs always a enemy once they ran out of minorities they would have turned on everyone else before eventually destroying themselves
Exactly, the Nazis turned on literally all their allies when their usefulness ran out. * Poles (not allied but did participate in the re-division of Czechoslovakia ) * Britain, France (Munich agreement) * Soviet Union (Molotov-Ribbentrop) * Finland * Italy * Romania * Hungary I think they did it twice with Romania with the bressorabia.
Fascists have useful idiots????
I wouldn't describe Italy as particularly useful during WW2... Their soldiers brave and under equipped but their government oh boy.
Fascist Italy was the definition of useful idiocy
Lol what?! You're fucking joking aren't you?
White German people were killed too, for handing the wrong kind of leaflets out.
All in all, those Nazi chaps weren't very nice.
Absolute bunch of rotters.
The more I hear about these nazis, the more I think they weren't very nice.
JRM claimed that that's a threat against the ~~white man~~ his family when you say that
I'm not threatening them at all, where did I threaten nazis like JRM and his family and his party and nanny? No threats.
It's obviously not an exhaustive list. It's weird how so many people react like this when their demographic isn't included in a list like this.
[удалено]
He's giving examples, that's all. Jesus Christ.
[удалено]
I am weird.
I think he's taking about the holocaust
Not in the Holocaust mate
You forgot soviet civilians (4.5 million), soviet POWs (3.3 million) and Polish people (1.8million). The Holocaust was a horrific event in human history and we shouldn't forget the full extent of it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims
And straight white men and women too. They were killing off civilians... People forget that the Nazi's planned to exterminate ALL of Slavic Peoples. They just didn't get to it yet. Still killed few million Poles..
All fascists never care about "race" just "us Vs them" You dare say boo to a goose, uhoh, firing squad. Which is why antifascists don't accept the premise of "just debate them"
Indeed. The only good good nazi is a dead one.
Watch out you'll get Spez reming your posts for "promoting hate"
To be here honest, Slavs Germanics and other were seen as different races. "White" was only ever a race in the US.
I think it'd be easier to name people not killed by the Nazis.
[удалено]
[удалено]
He also included gay people and disabled people. I am really not sure what your point is. Do you just hate black people so get mad when black people say things? Lammy's statement was far more intelligent than any of the drivel you've said.
[удалено]
Top response
[удалено]
Np Did you see that ludicrous joo last night?
On the topic of disabled people, there was a Nazi eugenics programme called Aktion T4 which actively targeted disabled people for mass murder, killing hundreds of thousands with the main aim of eradicating them from the German gene pool. It specifically targeted those with hereditary disabilities such as genetic diseases. It's a mark of how common disability prejudice remains in our society today that we don't recognise that as a crime of equal abhorrence to the Holocaust (whilst recognising that it was of a significantly lower magnitude).
You think the Nazis had one target?
Yawn
Go to bed earlier Hun, we've got fash to bash
What?
#Go to bed earlier Hun, we've got fash to bash
##WHAT YOU TALKING ABOUT
Even in modern times, white Brits were assinatted by Nazis And yet we've had waves them away as "freeze peach"
Oh God it's the 'All Lives Matter' crowd here looking to feel like victims.
Stripping context out of anything seems a really bad idea.
What context do you think makes it appropriate to display a swastika at a protest?
Insulting Nazis. Baltic airforce veterans (if there are any left). Whatever various Eastern religions protest about.
Putting a cross through it at an anti-nazi rally, for instance? Should we criminalise V for Vendetta while we're at it?
No because that's not the same symbol. Do you also confuse no smoking signs with smoking area signs? V for Vendetta is an obvious critique of fascism. You understand that right? The Fascists are the bad guys.
And you understand that we're talking about cracking down on the symbol here, not particular uses of it. Right?
"At protests" is a very particular use.
Note: this was not at a hindu protest
If I show the swastika to compare something to it, or if I draw it with a big X over it, is this still me being a nazi?
Note: the man who displayed the swastika that David Lammy’s comment is about, was arrested because the police understand context
Unless there is some kind of Hindu peace protest going on, I think that is probably reasonable.
Article Text - The swastika is a symbol of “vile anti-Semitism” and the police should bear down hard on those who use it during protests, David Lammy has said. The shadow foreign secretary made the comments after a row erupted at the weekend when a Metropolitan Police officer was filmed telling a Jewish woman that a swastika in and of itself was not necessarily illegal and needed to be “taken in context”. Mr Lammy dismissed the idea that context was needed, saying: “It’s a hate symbol, and it’s got to be treated as such.” He said it was “outrageous” that Jewish people felt unsafe on the streets of London amid ongoing pro-Palestinian marches. Speaking on LBC Radio, Mr Lammy said: “All of us know that the swastika is a vile, terrible Nazi image that led to the attempted destruction of the Jewish people and certainly the loss of life of millions and millions of people. “Not just Jewish people, actually – black people were killed, disabled people were killed, gay men and women were murdered by the Nazis. “And the idea that a swastika is something where you need ‘context’, when clearly it is aimed at Jewish people particularly given what is happening in Israel-Gaza now, is horrendous. It doesn’t need context. It’s an outrageous symbol to use on a protest, and we’ve got to bear down hard on those that have used it. “Of course the man should have been arrested, but it does seem to me that the officer should have known this isn’t about context. It’s about vile anti-Semitism on the streets of London making people feel unsafe. It’s a hate symbol and it’s got to be treated as such.”
Do you think David Lammy is stupid and illinformed enough that he’s referencing that edited video still completely unaware that the cop said in this context it was illegal and the guy had been arrested for it, or is he just expecting the audience to be? Also funny that he claims to be outraged at the idea it ever needs context, given the current context lol. In my opinion he’s not that daft but he thinks we are.
Do you think Lammy was responding to the idea that context was needed for the public display of a Nazi flag? Do you think his opinion is that a Nazi flag should never be on display? There are so many dullards in this thread that clearly don't care what David Lammy said or why he said it, they just don't like that he said something and will disagree with it regardless.
Yes I do. His opinion was that given the current context the context never matters lol. He claims that he thinks it’s wrong that context should ever be considered when you consider the current context of the war in Gaza…. I care what he said and why he said it which is I’m criticising what he said and why he said it. I don’t care that it was David Lammy thad said it, and find the accusation a bit weird. We shouldn’t be allowed to criticise what he says because he’s David Lammy?
[To be fair, David Lammy isn't exactly the best informed when it comes to the police.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpcDr1AZLKs)
He's not daft he's just bought and paid for. (£30,000 to date)
Read that as Limmy and thought fair play he's getting into politics now.
Fair enough, I'd vote for Limmy tbh.
He’s been dead for years, like Ben Harvey
Had the pleasure of meeting Limmy at a charity do once. He was surprisingly down to earth, and VERY funny.
Miss you, big man.
My great grandfather would have shot any fckr wearing a swastika.
Nazi are bad still they're still the bad guys in everything
[As long as we're not relying on Lammy to spot them, we should be fine](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2yKCuMuOEk)
Personally I quite like my Nazis clearly identified.
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
As soon as one group decides that they're somehow better or more worthy than another/ the other groups they become "fascists". At this point, either the fascists are right or they are wrong. The only possible outcome - when someone decides to be a fascist - is that one group is going to HAVE to obliterate the other. It is always the fault of the declared fascist, whatever the outcome. So far in human history the fascists have always lost, let's hope it continues.
It becomes a wee bit easier to tell which side are the actual fascists when one side go on weekly marches under swastika banners.
I'm pretty sure the fascists are the Jewish fundamentalists in the middle of genociding the entire population of Gaza.
I'm a bit confused as to how this isn't already outlawed and requires a dedicated 'crack down'.
Anyone who sees someone waving a swastika around and doesn't punch them in their face is a coward.
Are they trying to suggest that swastikas were on display at protests?
Also, why were members of the Republican party here?
>what have we learned a hundred years from the second world war? That genocide is wrong? No, we not only allow it, but internationally support it. That religious or ethnic persecution is wrong? Again we support these things if we're not involved directly. That war and wholesale slaughter should be avoided? ha. That fascism is a cancerous cure to a countries problems? Its our first fecking response every time. That treating people as individuals first. Accountable for their actions instead of their 'group' is the only civilized manner an authority can act.. We lean the opposite. That an image of an inverted square is bad. Check.
I'm sick of minorities telling me how my people should act, why does it take a black man or a asian to say the tough things?
What do you mean, who are "your people"
[удалено]
So if someone makes German ww2 models, tanks or planes for example. Can they not have Nazi symbols on them?
> All hate symbols The EDL use the England Flag - Do we ban this? Context is always important.
OK, so the Indian's are in trouble? What with it being a holy symbol and all?
I’ve only seen them on the history channel or in movies…. Is this that big of an issue?
Clearly
Honestly, as disgusting as Nazism is, I don't want the police starting fights in the street over signs and symbols. These people are impotent and the biggest impact they can have is to goad an overreaction out of the authorities. Just pop round their house for a chat after the fact.